Published Oct 12, 2026 | 10:32 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 12, 2026 | 10:38 AM
The possibility of constituting an SIT is being discussed in government circles
The Keralam Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has registered two FIRs in the CMRL-Exalogic case on Monday, naming former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena and son-in-law and MLA Mohammed Riyas as accused.
Vijayan is preparing to challenge the Kerala High Court order that led to the registration of the cases, arguing that he was not allowed to present his side before the order was passed.
Speaking to South First, P M Manoj, press secretary to Vijayan, said the former Chief Minister had been denied natural justice. Vijayan is expected to move the High Court against the order on Monday, with a petition seeking to quash the FIR also likely to follow.
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.
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.
Vijayan is preparing to challenge the High Court order on the ground that it was passed without hearing his side. He is expected to argue that the court’s observations are contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lalita Kumari case.
He is also likely to seek the quashing of the FIR, contending that he is directly affected by the observations in the High Court order and should have been allowed to respond.
The political defence is expected to focus on why the state government did not challenge the High Court order through an appeal before the FIRs were registered. The move comes as the case puts Vijayan, now the Leader of the Opposition, under renewed political and legal pressure.
The copy will be updated once the FIR copy is received.
(Edited by R Rajesh Kumar.)
