“We are not against any investigation,” the Bench said, even as it restored the right of Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T and Muhammed Riyas to challenge the Kerala High Court’s FIR direction in the CMRL-Exalogic case and paused the vigilance probe for seven days.
New Delhi: Overturning a Kerala High Court Division Bench order that had denied them leave to appeal, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 21, allowed former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband, former minister P.A. Muhammed Riyas, to challenge a Single Bench direction to register a vigilance FIR against them in the CMRL-Exalogic case, and stayed the investigation in that FIR for seven days so that the appeal can be filed [Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan, SLP(Crl) No. 20437/2026].
A special Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order. The FIR has not been quashed.
What the Judges said in Court
Justice Mohana remarked that leave to appeal “could have been granted”, and wondered why the writ petition had been filed in haste after the ED’s press release, without the necessary parties being impleaded. Justice Bagchi asked how the three could be seen as not aggrieved when the ED’s information named them. He also asked whether information shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA was mandatory, noting that the Single Bench had said so in one paragraph and spoken of the need for some verification in another. The State, he added, could have appealed, since its own stand was that a preliminary enquiry was necessary. He then said:
“We are not against any investigation.”
Why the three could appeal
On the question of standing, the Bench held that the Division Bench had erred in finding that the three lacked locus. They were not parties to the writ petition, but they could be treated as aggrieved persons: the Single Bench had found materials disclosing a cognizable offence against them, and if they could not contest that finding now, it would bind them in any later challenge to the FIR. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to locus and not the merits, and that the seven-day stay was not an opinion on interim relief, which the Division Bench may decide on its own.
The Court also noted that Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita now requires the involvement of the public servant’s superior before a court directs registration of an FIR against a public servant, a safeguard absent in the old CrPC. It added that an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act must comply with that special law’s conditions.
Submissions by counsel
Appearing for Pinarayi Vijayan, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra called it a “peculiar case”, one in which a Single Bench without a PIL roster entertained a PIL-type writ. He sought protection, warning that the 82-year-old would otherwise be taken into custody. Senior Advocate N. Hariharan mentioned the petitions of Veena T and Muhammed Riyas.
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, for the Directorate of Enforcement, submitted that an SFIO investigation into Exalogic and CMRL had found cognizable offences, which was why the ED shared information with the State under Section 66(2) PMLA, and that materials showed transfers of funds abroad by Veena and her husband. Counsel for writ petitioner K.M. Shajahan argued that the Single Bench direction was sound under Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and that accused persons have no right to be heard before registration of an FIR is directed. The State told the Court that the FIR had been registered before the Division Bench took up the matter.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
The allegations are that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) paid Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, a firm linked to Veena T, a total of Rs 1.72 crore in monthly instalments between 2017 and 2020 without any services being rendered. The ED issued a press release on August 19 alleging hawala transactions and PMLA offences, and on September 7 wrote to the Kerala DGP seeking a Prevention of Corruption Act FIR. The State chose instead to order a preliminary enquiry by a Special Investigation Team.
Then came the October 9 order of a Single Bench of the Kerala High Court, on Shajahan’s writ, directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR on the view that a preliminary enquiry was not warranted once the ED had shared information. A Division Bench refused the three leave to appeal on October 15. On October 16, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant indicated that the matter could be heard by a vacation Bench.
The allegations against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T and Muhammed Riyas are untested. The Supreme Court has expressly said it has expressed no view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence applies.
Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and connected matters
Case No.: SLP(Crl) No. 20437/2026
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Order: October 21, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for Pinarayi Vijayan; Senior Advocate N. Hariharan for Veena T and Muhammed Riyas; Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain for the ED; counsel for the writ petitioner and the State