Supreme Court pauses vigilance probe against Pinarayi Vijayan and family for a week, sends them back to High Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday put a corruption investigation against former Keralam chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and his son-in-law P A Mohamed Riyas on hold for seven days, and ruled that they are entitled to challenge in the High Court the order that set the case in motion.

A vacation bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana set aside a Keralam High Court division bench order of 15 October that had refused the three leave to appeal. Since the single judge had found that a cognisable offence was made out against them, the bench reasoned, they were plainly aggrieved and could not be shut out.

The FIR registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has not been quashed. The pause is meant only to give the family time to file its appeal, and the bench said it was expressing no view on the merits or on whatever interim relief the High Court may grant.

How the case reached Delhi

The case grew out of a writ petition by K M Shajahan. On 9 October a single judge of the High Court, acting on material shared by the Enforcement Directorate, directed the vigilance bureau to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ED alleges that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd made payments of ₹2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions, Veena’s now-defunct IT firm, and calls them fraudulent.

When the family tried to appeal, the division bench said they had no standing. The matter was mentioned before the Chief Justice on 16 October and listed before the vacation bench during the Dussehra break.

The arguments

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, for Vijayan, argued that the single judge had heard what was in effect a public interest petition without the roster to do so, and without hearing the people it named. Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, said the agency had shared its information under Section 66(2) of the money laundering law because it disclosed cognisable offences. The writ petitioner’s counsel argued that an accused has no right to be heard before a court orders an FIR, and the state said the FIR had been registered before the division bench took up the appeal.

Justice Bagchi asked how the petitioners could be treated as outsiders when the ED’s information named them. “We are not against any investigation,” he said.

The bench also noted that the single judge had gone further than ordering an FIR, directing an investigation and a final report, steps that under the anti-corruption law depend on other statutory conditions being met.

What comes next

The appeal now goes back to the Keralam High Court division bench. Unless that bench extends protection, the seven-day stay will lapse. Vijayan has separately been summoned by the ED for questioning on 23 October in a related money laundering inquiry.