Setback for ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan, others as Kerala HC denies plea to challenge order in CMRL case

The division bench rejected permission for Vijayan, his daughter Veena and son-in-law PA Mohammed Riyas to appeal or challenge the single-judge ruling. The bench had examined whether people who were not parties to the original case could contest its outcome. A detailed order is still awaited.

The earlier ruling came from Justice A Badharudeen on October 9. It accepted lawyer-activist KM Shajahan’s petition and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, or VACB, to register cases against Vijayan and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegations involved payments from CMRL and money allegedly routed abroad through hawala channels.

The division bench’s decision does not decide whether the corruption allegations are true. It leaves the earlier direction standing while the FIR process proceeds. Vigilance FIRs were registered this week, based on an Enforcement Directorate report alleging evidence of payments to Veena’s company.

The CMRL case is a corruption-related investigation involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited, or CMRL. The case focuses on allegations that CMRL paid money to Veena Vijayan’s firm, Exalogic Solutions, as a bribe connected to her father, Pinarayi Vijayan, who was then chief minister. It also involves alleged transfers abroad through hawala channels.

The Enforcement Directorate submitted a report containing what it described as evidence. That report alleged that ₹3.28 crore was paid by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions. The single-judge court then directed the VACB to register FIRs against Vijayan and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Vijayan and PA Mohammed Riyas have rejected the ED’s allegations. They called them baseless and politically motivated. The High Court’s latest decision concerns whether they could challenge the procedural order, not whether the allegations have been proved.

The amount at the centre of the ED’s allegation is ₹3.28 crore. The agency’s report says CMRL paid this sum to Exalogic Solutions, a firm run by Veena Vijayan. The report describes the payment as a form of bribe to her father, Pinarayi Vijayan, who was then Kerala’s chief minister.

This figure is presented in the article as an allegation contained in the ED’s report. The report was cited as having evidence that the agency claims shows the payment. It formed the basis for the VACB FIRs registered against Vijayan and others this week.

The amount does not itself establish criminal guilt. Vijayan and PA Mohammed Riyas have called the ED’s allegations baseless and politically motivated. The High Court has so far ruled on the challenge to the FIR-registration order, while a detailed division-bench order remains awaited.

An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal record of information about an alleged offence. It starts an official investigation by the relevant police or investigative agency. In this case, the agency is Kerala’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, which investigates the corruption allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A court direction to register an FIR requires the agency to record the allegations and begin the investigative process. Investigators can then examine documents, financial records and other material, subject to legal safeguards. The FIR is not a finding that the accused committed the offence. It marks the beginning of fact-finding.

Justice A Badharudeen’s October 9 order directed the VACB to book Vijayan and others. The article says FIRs were registered this week after an ED report alleged a ₹3.28 crore payment. Vijayan and Riyas deny the allegations, so the investigation and later legal steps remain important.

The issue arose because Vijayan, Veena and PA Mohammed Riyas were not parties to lawyer-activist KM Shajahan’s writ petition. Yet Justice A Badharudeen’s order on that petition directed the VACB to register FIRs against them. The division bench therefore considered whether they had the legal basis to challenge an order made in proceedings they had not formally joined.

Their counsel argued that a person unconnected to the case should not be able to seek registration of a corruption case against them. They also said the single-judge bench acted without hearing them. That raised a separate concern about procedural fairness and the right to respond before an order affects a person’s legal interests.

The division bench ultimately refused permission to challenge the order. Its detailed ruling is awaited. The decision leaves the earlier direction in place, and the article says the Vigilance FIRs were registered this week on the basis of the ED report.

Natural justice is a basic legal principle requiring fair procedure. Its central idea is that a person whose rights or interests may be affected should receive notice of the case and a meaningful opportunity to present their side. The decision-maker should also act fairly and without improper bias. These safeguards help prevent decisions based only on one side’s claims.

In the CMRL matter, Vijayan’s counsel said the single-judge bench directed the VACB to register FIRs without hearing Vijayan, Veena or Riyas. They argued that this violated the right to be heard. Their concern was especially significant because the three people were not parties to the writ petition filed by KM Shajahan.

The division bench considered that argument while examining whether they could challenge the order. It nevertheless refused them permission to do so. The article does not provide the detailed reasoning, because the court’s full order had not yet been released.

The Enforcement Directorate’s role in this account is to submit a report containing what it says is evidence of financial wrongdoing. Its report allegedly showed ₹3.28 crore paid by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, and it linked the payment to an alleged bribe involving Pinarayi Vijayan. The ED also alleged money was routed abroad through hawala channels.

The VACB is Kerala’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. It was directed by Justice A Badharudeen to book Vijayan and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The article says the VACB registered FIRs this week on the basis of the ED report. Registration begins the agency’s formal investigation into the allegations.

The courts handle the legal process. The single judge directed FIR registration, while the division bench considered whether the accused could challenge that direction despite not being parties. It refused permission. The court’s procedural decision does not by itself prove the allegations, which Vijayan and Riyas deny.