The Kerala High Court on October 9 directed the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register a First Information Report (FIR) against former Kerala Chief Minister and CPI(M) leader Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena and her husband, P A Mohammed Riyas, in connection with alleged corruption involving payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to Veena’s company, Exalogic Solutions.
Justice A Badharudeen passed the order while allowing a petition filed by advocate K M Shajahan, challenging the state government’s decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry instead of registering an FIR. The court also set aside the decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for the preliminary inquiry.
The allegations stem from financial transactions examined by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has alleged that CMRL made payments totalling ₹2.78 crore to Exalogic without corresponding services. The ruling moves the matter towards a formal anti-corruption investigation; however, the allegations have not been established as proven criminal offences, and the registration of an FIR does not amount to a finding of guilt.
Court Rejects Preliminary Inquiry
The High Court’s order concerns whether state authorities could conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations before registering a criminal case, despite receiving information from the ED about suspected offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The petition was filed by advocate K M Shajahan, who challenged the state government’s decision to route the allegations through a preliminary inquiry by a Crime Branch SIT. He argued that the information supplied by the ED warranted the immediate registration of an FIR rather than another preliminary assessment.
Justice A Badharudeen allowed the petition on October 9, directing the authorities to register an FIR. While pronouncing the decision, the court stated: “Writ petition allowed. Direction to register FIR,” according to reports by legal news publications.
The ED had informed the court that the material gathered during its investigation could form the basis for registering a case against Vijayan and the other individuals named in the proceedings. The agency maintained that the information it had forwarded to the state police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) contained material relevant to suspected offences under the anti-corruption law.
The state government, however, had argued that the information provided by the central agency was not, by itself, sufficient to warrant an immediate FIR and that a preliminary inquiry was necessary. The court’s decision rejected the government’s chosen course of action, setting aside the SIT-led preliminary inquiry route and directing the registration of a criminal case.
The ruling does not establish that the named individuals committed corruption. An FIR formally records information about a suspected offence and enables the investigation to proceed. The evidence, the circumstances surrounding the payments and the responsibility of the individuals concerned will have to be examined through the legal process.
How The Case Emerged
The case, commonly referred to as the CMRL-Exalogic or monthly payments case, centres on transactions between CMRL, a mining company, and Exalogic Solutions, an information technology firm associated with Veena Vijayan.
The matter came into focus following an Income Tax Department search in 2023, during which records relating to payments made by CMRL to Exalogic reportedly came under scrutiny. The allegations concern payments allegedly made under the description of IT consultancy services, with investigators questioning whether corresponding services were actually provided.
The ED subsequently examined the transactions under the PMLA and shared information with state authorities. According to reports, the agency alleged that CMRL had made payments totalling ₹2.78 crore to Exalogic under the guise of consultancy services. The wider investigation has also brought attention to questions about the nature of the financial arrangements and whether they could attract provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The state government initially opted for a preliminary inquiry through an SIT rather than immediately registering an FIR. That decision became the central issue in Shajahan’s petition before the High Court. The court’s intervention means the state’s anti-corruption machinery must now proceed in accordance with the direction to register the case.
The political implications are significant because Vijayan is a senior CPI(M) leader and has served as Kerala’s Chief Minister. Veena and Riyas are also prominent public figures. The allegations have therefore attracted considerable political attention, alongside questions about the independence and consistency of investigations into suspected wrongdoing involving influential individuals.
The CPI(M) has criticised the proceedings, describing the case as politically motivated, and has indicated that it will challenge the High Court’s order through legal and political means. The party has disputed the allegations and questioned the basis of the action. The court’s ruling, meanwhile, concerns the need to register a case and investigate the suspected offences; it should not be interpreted as a final judgement on the allegations.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Allegations of corruption involving public figures deserve a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation, irrespective of political affiliation or position. Public trust depends on institutions applying the law consistently, without allowing political considerations to determine who is investigated or how allegations are handled. At the same time, accusations must not be treated as proof of guilt, and the rights of everyone named in a case must be respected.
The Kerala High Court’s order marks an important step in determining whether the allegations warrant a formal investigation, but the process must now be guided by evidence, due process and accountability. Political parties should allow the legal process to proceed without turning the matter into an excuse for hostility or personal attacks. How can India strengthen public accountability while ensuring that corruption investigations remain independent, fair and free from political influence?
