A division bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday declined to grant permission to former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and several others to appeal a judicial directive ordering a criminal investigation into alleged illicit financial transactions linked to a Kochi-based mining firm.
Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John dismissed the petitions, which sought leave to challenge an October 9 directive issued by a single-judge bench. The division bench had reserved its verdict on the matter on October 13.
The underlying order, delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen, instructed the state Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to formally register a First Information Report against Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, his son-in-law and former minister Muhammed Riyas, alongside other individuals. Riyas also serves on the CPI(M) state secretariat.
Background of the Bribery Allegations
The case centres on allegations that Exalogic Solutions, an information technology firm owned by Veena, accepted unlawful payments from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited during the CPI(M)’s tenure in government.
Following an inquiry into the financial dealings between Exalogic Solutions and CMRL, the Enforcement Directorate recommended last month that the state police initiate a formal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Vijayan, Veena, Riyas, and associated parties.
Legal Dispute Over Preliminary Inquiry
Rather than acting immediately on the federal agency’s recommendation to file an FIR, the Congress-led state administration opted to commission a preliminary inquiry through the state Crime Branch, deferring any decision on criminal registration until that assessment concluded.
This administrative stance prompted legal action from K. M. Shajahan, who previously served as additional private secretary to former Chief Minister V. S. Achuthanandan. Shajahan petitioned the High Court to mandate the immediate filing of an FIR, with the Enforcement Directorate participating in the litigation.
During the proceedings before the single bench, the central agency argued that the Crime Branch lacked the authority to carry out a preliminary inquiry and maintained that an FIR was legally required following its findings. In response, state authorities maintained that the petition was procedurally invalid and argued that investigating agencies retain the legal discretion to run preliminary verifications prior to formal case registration.
Justice Badharudeen subsequently ruled in favour of the petitioner, directing vigilance authorities to proceed with the FIR, a decision that now stands following Thursday’s division bench dismissal.
