New Delhi: In a significant legal development in the controversial CMRL–Exalogic financial transactions case, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted interim relief to former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T., and his son-in-law, former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas.
The apex court stayed the investigation into the FIR registered by the Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) for seven days.
In another important decision, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court Division Bench’s order refusing permission to Vijayan and his family members to challenge an earlier Single Bench direction ordering registration of the FIR.
A special bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana delivered the order.
The ruling allows the petitioners to pursue their appeal before the Kerala High Court Division Bench while temporarily suspending the vigilance investigation.
Supreme Court Overrules High Court’s Refusal to Entertain Appeal
The controversy reached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court Division Bench, on October 15, declined to grant leave to Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T., and Mohammed Riyas to appeal against a Single Bench order directing registration of an FIR.
The Division Bench had taken the view that the petitioners were not entitled to challenge the order in the manner sought.
However, the Supreme Court disagreed.
The apex court observed that the petitioners could legitimately be regarded as aggrieved parties because the Single Bench had made observations indicating the existence of material disclosing cognisable offences involving them.
The Supreme Court held that they should have an opportunity to challenge those judicial findings.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Division Bench’s refusal and permitted the petitioners to pursue their appeals.
Vigilance Investigation Stayed for Seven Days
The Supreme Court also granted temporary protection by staying the investigation into the vigilance FIR for seven days.
Importantly, the Court did not quash the FIR.
The interim protection was granted to enable the petitioners to approach the High Court Division Bench and seek appropriate relief.
The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court would independently determine whether any further interim protection should be granted.
The seven-day stay therefore does not automatically extend beyond the period specified by the apex court.
Supreme Court Clarifies It Has Not Decided the Merits
A crucial aspect of Wednesday’s ruling is that the Supreme Court did not decide whether the corruption allegations were true or false.
Its decision was confined to the petitioners’ legal standing to challenge the Single Bench judgment.
The Court also made clear that allowing the appeal should not be interpreted as a finding against the investigation itself.
This distinction is important because the allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial scrutiny.
Legal Debate Over Enforcement Directorate’s Information
One of the central legal questions concerns Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Enforcement Directorate had forwarded information to Kerala Police concerning alleged offences arising from financial transactions involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Exalogic Solutions.
The Kerala High Court Single Bench had held that the material warranted registration of an FIR without requiring a further preliminary inquiry in the circumstances of the case.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Bagchi raised questions about whether information forwarded under Section 66(2) automatically required registration of an FIR.
The bench also discussed procedural safeguards under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), particularly in relation to judicial directions involving public servants.
However, the Supreme Court did not conclusively determine those substantive legal questions in its order.
Siddharth Luthra Appears for Pinarayi Vijayan
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra represented Pinarayi Vijayan before the Supreme Court.
He argued that the original proceedings before the High Court Single Bench were unusual because the direction to register an FIR had been issued in a writ petition resembling a public interest litigation.
Luthra also questioned the procedural circumstances in which the order had been passed without hearing the individuals concerned.
The Enforcement Directorate and the original writ petitioner maintained that a proposed accused person ordinarily has no right to be heard before an FIR is registered.
The Supreme Court distinguished the present case from an ordinary police decision to register an FIR.
It noted that the FIR had been registered pursuant to a judicial order containing findings about material allegedly disclosing offences.
The Court considered that distinction relevant to the petitioners’ right to appeal.
