The Kerala High Court on October 15 dismissed pleas by former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena, and son-in-law P A Mohamed Riyas seeking permission to appeal against an earlier order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL)-Exalogic payoff case.
Following the Kerala High Court’s decision to reject his plea to appeal against the FIR order, former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has approached the Supreme Court challenging the direction to register an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic case. He has also sought protection from coercive action. However, the Supreme Court declined to grant an urgent hearing on October 16, indicating that the matter could be considered during the Dussehra vacation or after the court reopens on October 26.
The latest move marks a fresh legal development in the case, which concerns allegations of illegal payments by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions, a company associated with Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena. The allegations remain subject to investigation, and the proceedings do not establish guilt.
A Division Bench comprising Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John held that the October 9 order had not prevented the applicants from pursuing other legal remedies against the FIR. The court also observed that they had not established a sufficient basis for being granted permission to appeal. The case concerns allegations of illegal payments by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, an information technology company associated with Veena.
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has registered two cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and constituted Special Investigation Teams to investigate them. Vijayan and his family members had argued that the earlier order was passed without hearing them. The latest ruling allows the investigation to proceed, but the allegations remain to be established through the legal process.
Court Upholds FIR Direction
The Division Bench rejected the applications filed by Vijayan, Veena and Riyas challenging the single-judge order issued on October 9. The earlier order, passed by Justice A Badharudeen, directed the state’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against the applicants and others over alleged corruption linked to payments made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions.
The information considered by the single judge had been forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In its ruling, the Division Bench said the applicants had not established a prima facie or arguable case for being granted permission to appeal. It also clarified that the earlier judgment had not affected their right to pursue constitutional or statutory remedies against the registration of the FIR.
The court stated, “All the applications seeking leave to file appeal are dismissed.” The applicants had argued that the single judge’s decision violated the principles of natural justice because they were not given an opportunity to present their side before the order was issued. The state government, meanwhile, maintained that conducting a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR was permissible. The High Court’s latest decision does not determine whether the accused are guilty; it concerns their request for permission to challenge the earlier order through an appeal.
What Is The CMRL Case?
The case centres on alleged financial transactions between CMRL, a company involved in mineral processing, and Exalogic Solutions, a firm associated with Veena. The controversy came into focus in 2023 following scrutiny by the Income Tax Department, which examined payments reportedly made by CMRL to Exalogic for consultancy services.
The transactions attracted attention after the department’s proceedings raised questions about whether the payments were supported by services actually rendered. The matter subsequently drew the attention of central investigative agencies, including the ED and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. The ED forwarded information to the state authorities, indicating that the material could warrant an investigation under anti-corruption laws. However, instead of immediately registering an FIR, the state government initially opted for a preliminary inquiry through a special investigation team. This decision was challenged by lawyer and activist K M Shajahan, who sought action against Vijayan and others.
On October 9, the single judge set aside the government’s decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry without registering an FIR, directing the authorities to initiate criminal proceedings. The VACB has since registered two cases and formed separate investigation teams. The allegations include suspected illegal payments and other financial irregularities. The accused have disputed the basis of the proceedings, and the investigation will need to establish whether the available evidence supports the allegations.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Cases involving allegations of corruption against senior political figures highlight the importance of transparent institutions, accountability and equal treatment under the law. Public office carries a responsibility to act in the public interest, and credible allegations of wrongdoing must be investigated fairly, irrespective of an individual’s political position or influence.
At the same time, an FIR or a court-directed investigation should not be treated as proof of guilt. Every accused person is entitled to due process, the opportunity to challenge legal action through appropriate remedies, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is established in accordance with the law. The Kerala High Court’s decision underscores the distinction between allowing an investigation to proceed and determining criminal responsibility.
As the VACB examines the allegations, the authorities must ensure that the process remains impartial, evidence-led and free from political pressure. Political parties, too, have a responsibility to encourage informed public discussion rather than allowing investigations to become an excuse for personal attacks or partisan hostility. Ultimately, public trust depends on institutions demonstrating that allegations are neither ignored nor used to prejudge individuals. How can India strengthen accountability in public life while ensuring that every person receives a fair and impartial legal process?
Also Read: Supreme Court Mulls All-Women Panel To Probe Assault Allegations Against Women Journalists
News Alert! Former Keralam CM Pinarayi Vijayan moves SC challenging HC order to lodge FIR in alleged CMRL bribery case. https://t.co/3cZDOHsEBU
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 16, 2026
