Kerala High Court Stays FIR and the further investigation against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and former Minister Muhammed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic case, and admits their appeals for final hearing after three weeks.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 26) stayed the FIR registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and former Minister Muhammed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic case, together with the further investigation and the Single Judge’s judgment that led to it. The Court admitted the appeals and posted them for final hearing after three weeks [Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and connected appeals].
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John heard Senior Advocates N. Hariharan, Sidharth Luthra, Gopalakrishna Kurup and T.A. Shaji for the appellants, Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for the State, Additional Solicitor General P. Sreekumar for the Enforcement Directorate and Advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner. The allegations in the case are untested, the Bench has not examined their merits at this stage, and all three appellants are presumed innocent.
How the case reached here
The proceedings arise from information passed on by the Directorate of Enforcement to the State. A Single Judge of the High Court, hearing a writ petition by Adv. K.M. Shajahan, directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr Vijayan, Ms Veena and Mr Riyas. The Single Judge held that the State’s decision to hold a preliminary enquiry without registering an FIR was illegal on the facts, and set aside the order forming a Special Investigation Team for that enquiry.
The three appellants then moved separate appeals before the Division Bench, contending that they were never heard before an order directly affecting them was passed. The Division Bench declined them leave to appeal. They approached the Supreme Court, which on October 21 held that they are entitled to pursue appeals before the Division Bench, remitted the appeals for consideration and granted interim protection against the investigation.
What the appellants argued
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that the writ petitioner short-circuited the statutory route under Section 175 BNSS by approaching the writ court directly, so the affected persons were not heard. He argued that the Single Judge entered the shoes of the investigating officer by directing registration of an FIR, a role that belongs to the executive, and that the matter, being in the nature of a public interest litigation, should not have been heard by the Single Judge in that form.
He also relied on Section 212 of the Companies Act to argue that once the Serious Fraud Investigation Office is probing the same transactions, no other agency can investigate, and pointed out that the SFIO enquiry has itself been stayed by the Delhi and Kerala High Courts. On the merits, he contended that no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out and that the prior-sanction requirement under Section 17A of that Act was not followed.
“There has to be the offence which fall within the provisions of the PC Act. That is lacking.”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra argued that the SFIO and the appellants were deliberately not made parties, and that had the BNSS route been followed, the Magistrate or the investigating officer could have found that no cognizable offence existed. Senior Advocates Gopalakrishna Kurup and T.A. Shaji pressed for a stay of the Single Judge’s decision.
The State, the ED and the writ petitioner
Advocate General K. Jaju Babu said the State was not in full agreement with the Single Judge’s decision to set aside the SIT but chose to respect it and register the FIR, since the Single Judge had seen the materials held by the ED. He submitted that what the State did was legally and factually correct and asked that no stay be granted at this stage because an FIR had already been registered.
Additional Solicitor General P. Sreekumar, for the ED, argued that when material disclosing a cognizable offence is passed on, the State must register an FIR, and that Section 212 of the Companies Act does not apply to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He also opposed extending the stay on investigation. Advocate V. Sethunath submitted that the writ petitioner had no other remedy since the information had been given to the State Police Chief, and that the SIT had been constituted without following the law.
What the Court did
After hearing detailed arguments, the Division Bench stayed the FIR, the further investigation and the Single Bench judgment, admitted the appeals and listed them after three weeks for final hearing. The stay is interim and the Bench has expressed no view on the correctness of the Single Judge’s findings or on the allegations that form the subject of the FIR.
Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan; Veena T. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan; Muhammed Riyas v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan (writ appeals)
Bench: Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates N. Hariharan, Sidharth Luthra, S. Sreekumar, T.A. Shaji, K. Gopalakrishna Kurup and Raman B. Pillai with other counsel for the appellants; Advocate General K. Jaju Babu and ASG P. Sreekumar for the respondents; Advocate V. Sethunath for the writ petitioner