Published Oct 19, 2026 | 9:30 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 19, 2026 | 9:30 AM
CM Satheesan is facing growing disquiet from within the Congress, with a section of party leaders questioning his approach in the case.
Synopsis: The CMRL-Exalogic case has opened fresh cracks within the Congress, with Mathew Kuzhalnadan and other leaders questioning the V.D. Satheesan government’s initial reluctance to register an FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan and his family. The bitter memories of the LDF era, particularly the cases faced by Oommen Chandy, loom large as leaders demand a tougher approach. While Satheesan defends the government’s legal caution, the row is testing both the party’s unity and its commitment to pursuing allegations against its staunch opponent.
After the tremors triggered by UDF convener Adoor Prakash, another political fault line is emerging within the Congress, this time over the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case involving Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan and his family.
Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan is facing growing disquiet from within the Congress, with a section of party leaders questioning what they see as an overly cautious approach towards former chief minister Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law P.A. Mohammed Riyas.
At the centre of the brewing storm is Mathew Kuzhalnadan MLA, who initiated the legal battle for an investigation into the alleged pay-off and is now challenging the government’s reliance on a preliminary inquiry.
What began as a disagreement over the course of a probe is gradually acquiring the dimensions of a political test for the Congress leadership, as leaders including Chandy Oommen MLA, C.R. Mahesh MLA, Jinto John and K. Sudhakaran MP rally behind the demand for a tougher approach.
The unease is fuelled by memories of the cases and political attacks faced by former chief minister Oommen Chandy and former minister Ibrahim Kunju during the previous LDF regime.
For Satheesan, the dilemma is delicate: how to defend a legally cautious approach without alienating party colleagues who expect the UDF government to pursue allegations it had raised against its political opponents.
With dissent gathering pace, the question is whether this latest tremor would expose a deeper strain between the Congress leadership and a section of its own ranks.
Also Read: ED plasters summons at Pinarayi Vijayan’s residence, asks him to appear on Friday
The Kerala High Court’s observations on the CMRL-Exalogic case have triggered an unexpected battle within the Congress, with Mathew Kuzhalnadan questioning the government’s handling of the case against Pinarayi Vijayan and finding himself at odds with the party leadership.
What began as a sharp attack at a press conference on October 16, escalated into a heated exchange at the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) meeting later that day, exposing differences over how the corruption case should be pursued.
Kuzhalnadan’s central argument was that the government had taken an unduly lenient position by favouring a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR against Vijayan.
Pointing to the Kerala High Court’s single-judge and division-bench rulings, he maintained that such an inquiry was unnecessary. He also questioned whether the legal advice received by the government had led it in the wrong direction, demanding that those responsible explain their decisions before party forums.
The division bench had observed that an accused in a corruption case had no legal right to be heard before an FIR was registered and could not insist on a preliminary inquiry as a precondition for registration.
Kuzhalnadan cited the findings as vindication of his long-running pursuit of the Exalogic case, in which he has faced ridicule and, according to him, political harassment, including a Vigilance inquiry. He also said he had written to Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala opposing the government’s approach.
At the heart of his argument was a question with political implications for the Congress government: why should Vijayan receive a measure of consideration that former chief minister Oommen Chandy was not afforded under the previous LDF regime?
The criticism drew a public rebuttal from Chennithala, who defended the government’s position and said Kuzhalnadan was wrong.
The confrontation moved into the CLP meeting that evening, where Kuzhalnadan pressed for an explanation from those who had backed the government’s approach.
Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan responded that governance required prudence rather than emotion.
Chennithala, Muraleedharan and Sunny Joseph supported the Chief Minister’s position, along with most of the party MLAs.
Jyothikumar Chamakkala MLA objected to Kuzhalnadan claiming to speak for the entire legislature party, saying he need not represent the views of all MLAs.
With his position attracting little support in the room, Kuzhalnadan, reportedly walked out before the meeting ended.
The episode necessitated a difficult balancing act for the Congress leadership.
Also Read: ED summons Pinarayi; SC may hear plea against Vigilance FIR next week
At the same time, on 15 October, Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan sought to put an end to allegations that the UDF government is using the law to target Vijayan and his family, insisting that the decision to register an FIR against them was taken after legal consultations and in compliance with the High Court’s directions.
But the court proceedings have put the government’s initial reluctance to register the case, and the arguments advanced by Advocate General K. Jaju Babu, under renewed scrutiny.
Satheesan said the government had neither protected nor persecuted Vijayan and his family.
When the Enforcement Directorate’s report was received, the government did not rush to register an FIR but sought the opinions of the Director General of Prosecution and the Advocate General. They advised that action was legally possible under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), he said.
The government, however, opted for a preliminary inquiry, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lalita Kumari case and the need to avoid allegations of acting in haste for political reasons.
Satheesan argued that registering an FIR immediately after receiving the ED report could have exposed the government to accusations of vendetta.
He said the government complied with the HC order, and the court subsequently allowed the legal proceedings to continue without granting a stay in favour of Vijayan or his family.
The chief minister also defended the stand adopted by the government in court, saying it was a collective decision arrived at after consultations with the Home Minister, other senior ministers and UDF leaders.
He maintained that the Advocate General had not made submissions beyond what the government had authorised.
Advocate General Jaju Babu had argued that the mere receipt of information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA did not make registration of an FIR mandatory and that the government had the option of conducting a preliminary inquiry. He also questioned the petitioner K.M. Shajahan’s motives, alleging vested interests.
Those arguments were rejected by both the single bench and the division bench.
Meanwhile, Satheesan has accused sections of the media of distorting the Advocate General’s submissions and said his government would not misuse its authority to settle political scores. The law, he insisted, must take its own course.
Also Read: DYFI leader, Reporter TV journalist booked over ‘defamatory’ remarks against Dy Speaker
At the same time, the court observations and Mathew’s outburst opened up a fault line within the Congress, with several leaders rallying behind his demand for a tougher approach.
While the UDF’s stated line is to allow the legal process to proceed, some party leaders are demanding that the government do more.
K. Sudhakaran MP’s public backing for Kuzhalnadan, Chandy Oommen’s call for the party to consider his arguments and cryptic social media post by Karunagappally MLA C.R. Mahesh and Congress leader Jinto John point to growing unease within.
Sudhakaran has thrown his weight behind Kuzhalnadan, whose criticism of the handling of the FIR had reportedly led to a heated exchange at a Congress Parliamentary Party meeting. Kuzhalnadan had argued that the failure to register a case at the outset was a mistake, a position that put him at odds with colleagues and left him isolated during the internal discussion.
Sudhakaran rejected the idea that Kuzhalnadan should be left to defend his position alone. He said the party stood with the MLA, describing him as a leader with firm political convictions. Taking a swipe at the government, Sudhakaran said that if it had the courage to act, it should consider action against Pinarayi Vijayan. He added that, in his personal view, a tougher course was possible.
Sudhakaran’s support for Kuzhalnadan is significant amid the party’s attempts to maintain a distinction between its political criticism of the LDF and the government’s handling of the case.
Chandy Oommen, too, has backed Kuzhalnadan, though he stressed that the UDF’s official position remained that the law should take its course. He said Kuzhalnadan had a detailed understanding of the case and urged the party to take his criticism seriously, warning that there should be no shortcomings in the legal process.
Drawing on his family’s experience, Chandy Oommen said pursuing individuals relentlessly was wrong, recalling what he described as the decade-long persecution faced by his father, Oommen Chandy. He alleged that his father had been denied justice under the previous LDF government and urged the present administration to ensure fair action without implicating anyone in fabricated cases.
He also pointed out that the discussions within the Congress and the decisions taken by the government need not always be identical, suggesting that the administration could arrive at its own conclusions through the legal process.
The unease has also spilled over onto the social media.
Karunagappally MLA C.R. Mahesh, in a social media post, shared a scene from the Malayalam film Godfather, in which the character Anjooran, angrily questions whether the past can simply be forgotten.
Mahesh accompanied the clip with the words, “Let this remain here for the time being. More later.”
Though he did not spell out the target of his post, several commenters linked it to the previous LDF government’s treatment of the solar case against Oommen Chandy. The post appeared to invoke the Congress’s political memory of that period without making a direct allegation.
Congress leader Jinto John was more explicit in his criticism.
In a Facebook post, he questioned whether the party had forgotten the “injustice” suffered by Oommen Chandy and the cases pursued against Congress leaders and workers during the LDF tenure. He referred to the solar case and alleged that investigative agencies under the CPI(M)-led government had recommended a CBI probe despite the absence of evidence.
Jinto also cited cases involving V.D. Satheesan, K. Sudhakaran and Mathew Kuzhalnadan, alleging that Congress leaders had been targeted through politically motivated proceedings. He warned that those now in power should not forget the treatment meted out to party workers and student leaders under the previous government.
Questioning the alleged delay, John argued that the handling of the case risked raising doubts among the public. He urged the leadership to abandon any approach that could be seen as shielding the CPI(M) leader’s family from scrutiny.
The remarks reveal a tension within the Congress between the need to respect legal procedure and the demand from some leaders that the UDF government demonstrate greater resolve in a case that has become a major political issue.
With Sudhakaran and Chandy Oommen backing Kuzhalnadan, and other leaders invoking the Congress’s experience under the previous LDF government, the CMRL case is testing the UDF’s ability to maintain a common line on an issue with both legal and political consequences.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
