Will Pinarayi Vijayan’s Plea Against Kerala High Court FIR Order be heard in the vacation? The Supreme Court says it may be, if a Bench is available, and otherwise on October 26.
New Delhi: Former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who has challenged the Kerala High Court’s direction to register an FIR against him in the CMRL-Exalogic case and wants vigilance proceedings stayed, mentioned his petition for urgent hearing before the Supreme Court on October 16, and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the Court would explore constituting a Bench during the vacation [Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Others].
Vijayan was represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra. His daughter Veena T. and her husband Muhammed Riyas have also approached the Court against the same High Court order. According to the CJI, the matter will be listed in the vacation if a Bench is available, and will otherwise be taken up on October 26.
What Luthra told the Court
Luthra’s case was that the Single Judge, on a petition filed by a stranger, had exercised jurisdiction in the nature of a public interest litigation and directed an FIR to be registered, leaving the 82-year-old petitioner facing possible arrest. He added that the State itself had described the proceeding as being in the nature of a PIL. As reported, the proceedings recorded no order on the merits and no stay.
From the October 9 order to the Supreme Court
At the centre of the dispute are payments by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm linked to Veena. On October 9, Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition of Advocate K.M. Shajahan and told the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Vijayan, Veena and Riyas, acting on information from the Enforcement Directorate. The judge also held that the State’s preliminary enquiry without an FIR was illegal and set aside the order constituting a Special Investigation Team.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John declined an interim stay on October 13 and reserved its verdict. Two days later, on October 15, it refused leave to appeal to the three, who had not been parties before the Single Judge, and rejected their contention that natural justice had been breached. The allegations remain untested, no court has examined the merits, and the persons named are presumed innocent.
The question before the Supreme Court
Can a writ court direct registration of an FIR against persons who were not before it, in a petition by a third party that the State itself treated as being in the nature of a PIL? That is what the petitions raise. The Supreme Court has not yet issued notice or any interim direction, and what happens next depends on the listing the CJI indicated.
Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Others
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for Pinarayi Vijayan