Kerala High Court Rejects Former CM Pinarayi Vijayan's Plea To Challenge Vigilance FIR Direction In CMRL-Exalogic Case

  • Kerala High Court Rejects Former CM Pinarayi Vijayans Plea To Challenge Vigilance FIR Direction In CMRL-Exalogic Case
    Listen to this Article

    The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 15) refused to grant permission to former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, daughter Veena T. and son-in-law/ex-Minister Muhammed Riyas to appeal against the Single Bench order directing Vigilance FIR against them in CMRL-Exalogic pay off case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 580]

    A detailed order is awaited.

    The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John today dismissed the leave petitions filed by the three seeking permission to appeal against the order. It was pronounced in open court:

    "We that the impugned judgment has not affected the right of the applicants to pursue their constitutional or statutory remedy against the registration of the FIR and in such a situation, all the applications seeking leave to appeal are dismissed."

    On Tuesday, the Court had heard detailed arguments by Senior Advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar, T.A. Shaji and Raman B. Pillai for the appellants, Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for State, ASGI P. Sreekumar for the Enforcement Directorate and Advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner before reserving its verdict in the applications seeking leave to appeal.

    Last Friday, a Single Bench had directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena as well as her husband/ex-Minister Mohammed Riyas based on the information passed by the Directorate of Enforcement.

    The Single Bench had found that the government's decision to conduct preliminary enquiry without registration of FIR is illegal considering the facts of the case. It had also set aside the State's order forming Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct preliminary enquiry.

    Aggrieved by the direction, the three have moved separate appeals before the Division Bench. It is contended that they were not heard by the Single Bench before passing an order that directly affects them, violating principles of natural justice.

    Counsel for the appellants: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), T.A. Shaji (Sr.), K. Gopalakrishna Kurup (Sr.), Raman B. Pillai (Sr.), Ameen Hassan K., Lisna Sherin T.T., Ummul Fadla T., Abdul Fathah, Rajesh A., Muneer Ahmed, Gilbert George Corrreya, K.K. Ravindranath, P. Narayanan, Manu V., Thanushree Damodaran, Abhijith M.A. and Clarina Christopher P.

    Counsel for the respondents: K. Jaju Babu - AG, P. Sreekumar - ASGI, V. Sethunath

    Case Title :  Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors., Veena T. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors., Mohammed Riyas P.A. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors.Case Number :  WA 2121/ 2026 (Filing No.), WA 2122/ 2026 (Filing No.)CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
    K. Salma Jennath

    Salma Jennath is a Principal Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering Kerala High Court

    Next Story