The Kerala High Court on Tuesday questioned the state government over its decision to order a preliminary enquiry despite receiving information from the Enforcement Directorate regarding alleged corruption offences involving former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and others.
A division bench comprising Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John raised the query during a hearing on petitions moved by Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas. The three applicants are seeking leave to appeal against an October 9 order by a single judge that directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a First Information Report against them in connection with the alleged CMRL bribery case.
State Defends Enquiry Citing Incomplete Documentation
Responding to the court, Advocate General Jaju Babu explained that the state government opted for a preliminary enquiry to verify the assertions forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate. He noted that several materials related to the allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been shared with the state police by the central agency, requiring an initial verification.
Bench Questions Failure to Challenge Registered Cases
During the hearing, which exceeded two hours, the bench asked the appellants why they had not directly challenged the FIRs, given that the cases had already been filed. The judges further questioned whether an accused or prospective accused must invariably be heard prior to the registration of an FIR in criminal proceedings.
The court scheduled the continuation of the hearing for the post-lunch session.
Appellants Contest Lack of Prior Hearing
Legal counsel for Vijayan and his family members argued that their clients were entitled to be heard by the single judge because the directive emerged from a writ petition whose outcome directly impacted them. The lawyers maintained that the situation differed from routine FIR registrations handled by police officers and contended that an FIR ordered directly by the High Court cannot subsequently be challenged before the court.
The appellants also contended that the original petition had the character of a public interest litigation and should have been placed before a division bench designated to hear public interest matters rather than a single judge.
Background of the Bribery Probe and FIRs
The legal challenge follows the registration of two FIRs on Monday by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau’s Special Investigation Unit-1 against Vijayan and his family members.
The single judge’s October 9 directive was issued on the basis of a report submitted to the state police by the Enforcement Directorate, which sought criminal registration following searches and evidence gathered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The central agency has alleged that CMRL made illicit payments amounting to Rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct firm owned by Veena, disguised as consultancy fees for information technology services.
