A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has reserved its verdict on appeals in the CMRL-Exalogic Case but declined to stay, for now, a Single Bench direction to register a vigilance FIR; the allegations are untested.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to grant an interim stay of a Single Bench judgment directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and her husband Muhammed Riyas, a former Minister, while reserving its verdict on their appeals and leave petitions [Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Others]. The allegations are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies to all three.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John heard the appeals on October 13, 2026. The appellants also sought leave to appeal because they were not parties before the Single Bench.
The background
The Single Bench had directed registration of the FIR on the basis of information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate. It held that the government’s decision to hold a preliminary enquiry instead of registering an FIR was illegal on the facts of the case, and it set aside the State’s order constituting a Special Investigation Team for that enquiry. The three appellants say they were never heard before an order that directly affects them.
What the appellants argued
Senior Advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar and T.A. Shaji, appearing for the appellants, argued that they were necessary parties to the writ petition, which relied on material shared by the Enforcement Directorate, and that they were not heard. They contended that the petition was in the nature of a public interest litigation that should not have been entertained, and described the writ petitioner as a meddlesome interloper who had alternative remedies under criminal law.
What the Enforcement Directorate, the writ petitioner and the State said
Additional Solicitor General P. Sreekumar, for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that an accused has no right to be heard at this stage and that, once the Single Bench order has been implemented, the scope for interference is limited. Advocate V. Sethunath, for the writ petitioner, argued that he is a taxpaying citizen aggrieved when public money is allegedly looted and that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act always involve public interest. Advocate General K. Jaju Babu told the Bench that the Special Investigation Team was formed only to verify whether cognizable offences were made out, and that the information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate was not clear on that point.
Why the order matters
The refusal of interim relief means the Single Bench direction remains in force while the Division Bench decides the appeals. It does not decide whether the allegations have any substance, and the Bench has not yet ruled on whether the appellants, who were not parties below, can maintain the appeals at all. The reasoning will be known only when the verdict is pronounced.
Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Others [WA No. 2121 of 2026]; Veena T. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Others [WA No. 2122 of 2026]; Mohammed Riyas P.A. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Others
Bench: Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John, Kerala High Court
Date of Hearing: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar and T.A. Shaji for the appellants; ASGI P. Sreekumar for the Enforcement Directorate; Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for the State; Advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner