Supreme Court stays probe against Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL case for seven days

The Supreme Court has paused further investigation for seven days in the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited bribery case involving former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, and son-in-law P A Mohamed Riyas.

A vacation bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana granted the temporary reprieve during a special sitting on Wednesday. The bench set aside an earlier order of the Kerala High Court division bench that had dismissed Vijayan's challenge to a single-judge directive ordering a criminal case.

While halting active police inquiries for a week to let the petitioners seek interim relief before the High Court, the judges refused to quash or stay the First Information Report itself.

"Howsoever high you will be, you cannot be above law. We will not order a stay on the FIR," Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing, affirming that allegations of financial impropriety must face rigorous legal scrutiny.

What the case alleges

The dispute centres on financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited, a private mineral firm, and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, an IT firm owned by Vijayan's daughter Veena T.

Income tax audits and subsequent inquiries revealed that between 2017 and 2020, CMRL transferred funds to Exalogic under the umbrella of consultancy services without any documented services being rendered.

Jurisdictional questions and statutory limits

The central government's anti-money laundering agency, the Enforcement Directorate, uncovered evidence during its own proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and shared the findings with the Kerala Police on 22 September. Following a writ petition filed by advocate K M Shajahan, a single judge of the Kerala High Court directed the state vigilance wing to register an FIR on 9 October.

The Supreme Court questioned the procedural rush in issuing directives before the state government's nine-member Special Investigation Team had concluded its preliminary enquiry. The bench drew attention to statutory safeguards under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which require due procedure before investigating public servants.

The bench also cautioned the Enforcement Directorate against overstepping its legal mandate into state policing powers.

"Do your examination under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. File your complaint... Go ahead with your prosecution. Don't extend your hand beyond your statutory limits," the bench told ED counsel Zoheb Hossain, clarifying that once central authorities alert a state to predicate crimes, local law enforcement must proceed strictly according to statutory process.

What happens next

The Supreme Court left the separate money laundering case registered by the central agency unhindered, noting that any challenge to the Enforcement Case Information Report must be raised in separate proceedings.

The matter now returns to a division bench of the Kerala High Court, which must determine whether the FIR complied with statutory requirements while considering the family's plea for protection from arrest.