Published Oct 15, 2026 | 12:03 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 15, 2026 | 12:03 PM
Pinarayi Vijayan
Synopsis: According to Bar and Bench, “We find that the impugned judgment hasn’t affected the right of the applicants to pursue the constitution of the statutory remedy against the registration of FIR and in such a situation all the applications seeking leave to file appeal are dismissed,” the Court held.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday, 15 October, has declined to entertain appeals by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas against a directive to register a Vigilance FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic case.
A Division Bench comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John dismissed the three petitions seeking leave to challenge the single bench order.
According to Bar and Bench, “We find that the impugned judgment hasn’t affected the right of the applicants to pursue the constitution of the statutory remedy against the registration of FIR and in such a situation all the applications seeking leave to file appeal are dismissed,” the Court held.
Also Read: Vigilance registers two FIRs naming Pinarayi, Veena and Riyas; ex-CM to challenge move
The Bar and Bench, further reported that, a lawyer named KM Shajahan, who had also served as an additional private secretary to former CM and CPI (M) leader, late VS Achuthanandan when he was the Leader of Opposition, approached the High Court challenging this move. Shajahan sought registration of an FIR.
During the hearing of the applications seeking leave to appeal, former Kerala Advocate General Senior Advocate K Gopalakrishna Kurup, appearing for Veena, questioned how Shajahan, who is a third party unconnected to the case, could have moved the Court for the registration of an FIR in the first place.
He argued that the single judge’s direction for an FIR had impacted the appellants’ legal remedies but that it was passed without hearing them, violating the priniciples of natural justice.
Senior Advocate Kurup further maintained that the State was well within its rights to first conduct a preliminary inquiry, before deciding if an FIR was necessary based on the infomation handed over by the ED.
Former Director General of Prosecution and Senior Advocate TA Shaji appearing for Pinarayi Vijayan asserted that the appellants must be heard before the FIR proceeds.
Also Read: Kerala HC orders FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena, Riyas in CMRL-Exalogic case
Earlier, the single bench had directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the three, acting on information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
It had ruled that the government’s decision to proceed with a preliminary inquiry without registering an FIR was illegal and quashed the order constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for the probe.
Aggrieved by this the three approached the division bench.
In their appeals, the three argued that they had not been heard before the single bench issued directions. They also contended that this violated the principles of natural justice.
The Kerala High Court had held that the material submitted before it disclosed possible cognisable offences. The state police had been examining whether a preliminary inquiry was required before registering an FIR.
The FIRs were registered by the VACB’s Special Investigation Unit-1 following legal advice and the High Court’s directive to initiate a case based on material submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Justice A Badharudeen had delivered his verdict on a petition filed by KM Shajahan, the former private secretary to late Kerala Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan.
In the first case, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Vijayan has been named the first accused, while his daughter, Veena T, and her company, Exalogic Solutions, are at the centre of the allegations concerning payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL).
The second FIR names former minister and MLA P A Mohammed Riyas, Vijayan’s son-in-law, as the first accused and Veena as the second accused. It concerns separate allegations relating to financial transactions and the alleged transfer of money abroad through hawala channels, sources said.
The ED had alleged that CMRL paid Rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic under the guise of IT consultancy services without receiving corresponding services. The allegations have not been established in court.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Dileep V Kumar)
