StatesKeralam
High Court refuses to stay Vigilance FIR order against Pinarayi Vijayan and family
A Division Bench reserved orders on appeals by the former Chief Minister, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic case.

Key points
- The High Court in Kochi refused an interim stay on the order for a Vigilance FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan.
- The Vigilance bureau had already registered two FIRs before the appeal was heard.
- Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John reserved orders on whether the appeals can go ahead.
The High Court in Kochi on Tuesday refused to stay an order directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a corruption case against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas.
A Division Bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John heard the family’s appeals against a Single Bench order passed on Friday in the CMRL-Exalogic case. That order told the bureau to file an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of information shared by the Enforcement Directorate, and quashed the state government’s decision to set up a Special Investigation Team for a preliminary inquiry.
By the time the appeals came up, the bureau had already registered two FIRs, which left little for an interim stay to hold back. The bench reserved its order on whether the appeals can be entertained at all.
Counsel for the family argued that the original writ petition was a public interest case in disguise and should not have been admitted, calling the petitioner a “meddlesome interloper” with no standing.
The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, said: “The accused has no legal right to be heard at the pre-trial or FIR registration stage.” He added that the Single Bench order had already been carried out, which narrowed the room for the Division Bench to step in.
The Advocate General, for the state government, backed the appellants. He said the special team had been formed to check whether any cognisable offence had taken place, and that the Enforcement Directorate’s information was not clear enough to act on without a preliminary check.
Counsel for the original petitioner, who approached the court as a taxpayer, said that alleged offences under the anti-corruption law by their nature raise a matter of public interest, which gave a citizen the right to bring the case.