The Karnataka High Court has ordered a stay on an arrest warrant issued against former Indian cricketer Robin Uthappa in respect of a case wherein there were allegations of provident fund (PF) fraud leveled against him. This was made after Uthappa moved the court challenging the warrant issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization and lower court proceedings against him.The case essentially concerns claims against Uthappa and other directors of a sports management firm for failing to deposit the provident fund contributions of the employees under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. EPFO had filed a legal proceeding against the company, inter alia claiming that the said company had defaulted in its PF payments and thus was violating its statutory obligation. Uthappa and other directors have an arrest warrant against them after they failed to appear before the lower court when they were called by summons several times. He is of the opinion that neither he manages the day-to-day business of the company nor has he ever taken any financial decisions on behalf of the company. This arrest warrant, in his view, was wholly without justification because Uthappa had never entertained an intention to evade legal procedure. The High Court felt that the prima facie case made against Uthappa was to be examined by the court in detail before determining to what extent he involved himself in the running of the business of the company. On that basis it felt that there was no justification for passing the arrest warrant at this stage and sent the orders of the trial court back for review. Important Thoughts of the Court The court highlighted that not all directors can be held liable for financial irregularities unless it is proven that they were actively involved in the company's operations. Due Process: The issuance of an arrest warrant must follow due process and should be a last resort when the accused shows deliberate non-cooperation. Scope of Liability: The liability under the EPF Act would be determined with respect to the role and responsibility of each director because the law does not automatically confer blanket liability. The notices were issued by the High Court to the EPFO and other respondents in the case as a temporary reprieve for Uthappa from arrest, but it made it clear that the investigation should continue so that accountability is fixed if any wrongdoing is established. This case, therefore, goes to indicate the plight of directors in matters of corporate governance, especially in cases where financial mismanagement has been alleged. It also distinguishes between the act of actual involvement and being nominally involved in legal matters.