SC pauses CMRL–Exalogic probe for seven days, allows Pinarayi Vijayan’s appeal

• The Supreme Court paused the vigilance investigation for seven days, allowing Pinarayi Vijayan and other petitioners to seek relief before the Kerala High Court

• The court found a prima facie basis for their right to appeal against the single judge’s directions; the FIR remains in place

• The ruling concerns access to an appellate remedy and does not decide the merits of the alleged CMRL–Exalogic payments

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the vigilance investigation into the alleged CMRL–Exalogic payments for seven days, giving former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and other petitioners time to pursue appeals before the Kerala High Court.

A bench of justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana set aside the High Court order declining to entertain their challenge to a single judge’s directions for registration of a corruption case. The petitioners include Vijayan’s son-in-law and former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas.

The FIR registered by the Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau will remain in force. The temporary protection applies to the investigation and is intended to allow the petitioners to approach the High Court’s Division Bench for interim relief.

The Supreme Court clarified that it had examined their entitlement to challenge the single judge’s order, without expressing a view on the merits of the appeals.

The dispute arose from a 9 October order directing registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of material shared by the Enforcement Directorate.

The petitioners subsequently approached a Division Bench, which declined to stay the directions and reserved its decision on whether people who were not parties to the original proceedings could maintain appeals against the order.

The ED and the original writ petitioner opposed their right to appeal. The Supreme Court, however, found that the petitioners had established a prima facie basis to seek an appellate hearing.

The Bench noted that the single judge had expressly found that the ED’s material disclosed a cognisable offence, making registration of an FIR mandatory. Such a finding could affect the petitioners in separate proceedings challenging the FIR, the court observed.

It also distinguished the case from one in which the state independently registers an FIR after receiving information from the ED. Here, registration of the case and the start of the investigation followed a constitutional court’s directions.

The Supreme Court further noted that the single judge had directed not only registration of an FIR but also commencement of the investigation and submission of a final report. An investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act must satisfy additional statutory requirements, it observed.

The Division Bench will be free to decide any request for interim protection independently and in accordance with law. The seven-day stay does not determine whether further relief should be granted.

The case concerns payments allegedly made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited to Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, founded by Veena, during the first Vijayan-led government.

The ED has alleged that Exalogic received Rs 3.28 crore without providing the corresponding services and that the payments constituted a bribe to Vijayan routed through political influence. These allegations remain subject to investigation and adjudication.

Vijayan and Veena have been named as the first and second accused respectively among seven people in the case.

Following the single judge’s directions, Vigilance Director Manoj Abraham ordered the formation of an investigation team under the supervision of deputy inspector general of police Thomson Jose.

With IANS inputs