Can Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T. and Muhammed Riyas appeal at all? A Kerala High Court Division Bench has said no to leave to appeal in the CMRL-Exalogic case, leaving the Single Bench direction for a vigilance FIR where it stands.
Kochi: Declining leave to appeal in the CMRL-Exalogic case, the Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the petitions of former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and her husband P.A. Muhammed Riyas against a Single Bench judgment that directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act [Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John decided the leave petitions. It had heard the matter and reserved its verdict on Tuesday, when it also declined to grant an interim stay of the Single Bench judgment.
The October 9 direction they wanted to challenge
The order under challenge came on Friday, October 9, when Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the writ petition of Advocate K.M. Shajahan. He directed the VACB to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the three, on the basis of information shared by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The Single Bench also held that the State government’s decision to hold a preliminary enquiry without registering an FIR was illegal, and set aside the State’s order constituting a Special Investigation Team.
At the heart of the matter are payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions, the IT firm run by Veena. Those payments have been the subject of several proceedings over the past two years, including a Serious Fraud Investigation Office probe.
Why they needed the Court’s permission first
None of the three had been a party before the Single Bench, which was hearing a writ petition seeking registration of a case on information the ED had passed to the State police. A writ appeal against that judgment therefore required the Division Bench’s permission. Their main contention was that the order directly affected them although they had not been heard, in breach of the principles of natural justice.
That permission has now been refused. The ruling settles only whether the appeals can be brought and is not a decision on the merits of the allegations. The Bench’s detailed reasons are yet to be made available.
Allegations untested
The allegations against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T. and Muhammed Riyas are untested, no court has examined them on merits, and the presumption of innocence applies. It is not yet known whether the VACB has registered the FIR, or whether the three will move the Supreme Court.
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 No.: WA (Filing No.) 2121/2026 and 2122/2026, with connected leave petitions
Bench: Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, S. Sreekumar, T.A. Shaji and Raman B. Pillai for the appellants; Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for the State; ASGI P. Sreekumar for the ED; Advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner