Kerala HC order against former CM Pinarayi Vijayan and others raises a larger question of natural justice, say legal experts

The Kerala High Court’s single judge directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR. The order named former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and his son-in-law, MLA P.A. Mohamed Riyas. It followed a petition by K.M. Shajahan and a letter from the Enforcement Directorate seeking an FIR against them.

The judge heard Mr. Shajahan and the Enforcement Directorate. However, Vijayan, Veena, and Riyas were not offered an opportunity to present their side. Legal experts say that omission may raise a natural-justice issue. They also say the order may have bypassed a statutory safeguard under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The three can potentially challenge the order before the High Court or Supreme Court. The State government is unlikely to appeal, leaving the legal responsibility mainly with Vijayan and the two others. The Vigilance Bureau must now act on the order unless it is successfully challenged or otherwise set aside.

An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal police record made when information about a suspected offence is registered. It begins the criminal-investigation process. Registration does not itself establish guilt. It records the allegations so investigators can examine evidence and determine what further action is legally justified.

Here, the Kerala High Court ordered the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan, T. Veena, and P.A. Mohamed Riyas. The article says the Vigilance will have to book the FIR against Vijayan and Riyas under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The order followed a petition by K.M. Shajahan and an Enforcement Directorate request.

The FIR could have wider consequences. The Enforcement Directorate may use it, along with corruption allegations, as a predicate offence for money-laundering proceedings against Vijayan and Riyas. Veena’s position differs because she is not a public servant and the article says the Prevention of Money Laundering Act route described does not apply to her.

Two of the three people named are public servants under the article’s legal description: Pinarayi Vijayan, a former Chief Minister, and P.A. Mohamed Riyas, an MLA. T. Veena is identified as a private individual who is not a public servant. The distinction matters because anti-corruption law gives public servants a specific procedural safeguard.

Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval from the competent authority before police officers inquire into alleged offences committed by public servants while performing official functions. The article says the Vigilance will have to register the FIR against Vijayan and Riyas under the Act. It also says the Act will not apply to Veena because she is not a public servant.

The difference also affects the money-laundering route described. The ED may use the corruption FIR as a predicate offence against Vijayan and Riyas. Veena is instead facing proceedings linked to an SFIO complaint alleging corporate fraud involving CMRL and Exalogic Solutions.

Natural justice generally requires that people affected by a serious legal decision receive notice and a fair opportunity to respond. It matters because a court should hear relevant sides before issuing an order that may expose someone to investigation or prosecution. The safeguard supports fairness and helps prevent decisions based only on one-sided material.

In this case, the single judge heard petitioner K.M. Shajahan and the Enforcement Directorate. The ED had forwarded a letter to the State government seeking an FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan, T. Veena, and P.A. Mohamed Riyas. The three named people, however, were not offered an opportunity to be heard before the order was made.

Legal experts cited in the article say that denial could be construed as a violation of natural justice. They say it may enable Vijayan and the others to challenge the order before the High Court or Supreme Court. The issue could therefore affect both the order’s fairness and its legal durability.

Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval from the competent authority before police officers conduct an inquiry into offences allegedly committed by public servants while discharging official functions. The provision is therefore a procedural checkpoint. It is meant to ensure that an official is not exposed to an inquiry solely through an unreviewed allegation.

The article says the provision was introduced through a 2018 amendment. It describes the section as a safeguard against unnecessary litigation. The stated concern was that frequent or weak cases could deter government servants from performing their duties honestly and fairly. The State argued that the competent authority should be able to choose between registering an FIR and conducting a preliminary inquiry after receiving information from the ED.

Legal experts say the single judge’s order may have bypassed Section 17(A). The Supreme Court is considering whether courts can overlook this approval requirement, after opposing judgments sent the question to a larger Bench. That uncertainty may shape any challenge to the order.

The principal legal option is to challenge the single judge’s order before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Legal sources say the lack of an opportunity to be heard may provide a natural-justice ground. They also point to the possible bypassing of Section 17(A), which could create a separate statutory challenge concerning prior approval.

Pinarayi Vijayan, P.A. Mohamed Riyas, and T. Veena are the people named in the order and therefore may seek relief through the appropriate forum. The article says the legal responsibility for challenging the decision has been left with Vijayan and the other two. It also says the State government, which has limited options after the order, is unlikely to appeal.

Veena has an additional, separate legal development. Her position in the corporate-fraud proceedings depends on CMRL’s petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the Serious Fraud Investigation Office investigation. That petition is distinct from the challenge to the Kerala High Court’s FIR order.

A predicate offence is the underlying alleged crime connected to a money-laundering case. In this situation, the corruption allegations and the FIR ordered by the Kerala High Court could provide that underlying offence. The Enforcement Directorate can then use the FIR and allegations as the basis for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The article says this route would apply to Pinarayi Vijayan and P.A. Mohamed Riyas. It says the ED would use the FIR and corruption allegations as a predicate offence to book them for money laundering. The distinction is important because the article states that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act route described will not apply to T. Veena, who is not a public servant.

Veena is nevertheless facing a separate ED-related route. The ED proceeded against her based on an SFIO criminal complaint concerning alleged corporate fraud involving CMRL and Exalogic Solutions. Her case’s fate depends on CMRL’s Delhi High Court challenge to the SFIO investigation.