Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed orders directing the registration of first information reports by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and paused its probe against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and members of his family in the alleged CMRL bribery matter, news agency Press Trust of India reported.
Division Bench grants interim relief
A Division Bench comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John admitted the appeals filed by Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas against a single-judge order of 9 October that had directed the VACB to register FIRs based on material submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The bench ordered that the FIRs and the VACB investigation will remain stayed until further orders and listed the matter for hearing after four weeks.
The stay is temporary and limited to the registration and investigation undertaken by the VACB. The court said the appeals required detailed consideration before any final direction could be issued.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners
Senior counsel N. Hariharan, representing Veena and Riyas, contended that the ED material did not disclose a cognisable offence or an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submitted that the petitioners were not heard before the single judge passed the directive and argued that had they been afforded an opportunity, they would have demonstrated that no prima facie case was made out.
“We were not heard. If we were heard, we would have shown no cognisable offence is made out. But the single judge proceeded ex parte behind our back,”
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Vijayan, argued that registration of an FIR could not follow mechanically from an ED claim that an offence had been committed. Counsel also pointed out that transactions involving Veena and Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) were already under investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and suggested that multiple agencies probing the same transactions raised issues of jurisdiction and duplication.
Contention over procedural route
Hariharan further submitted that the petitioner who sought the FIR should have approached the Sessions Court instead of moving by way of a writ petition in the High Court. He told the bench that, had the Sessions Court been taken to first, the accused would have been called and heard in the ordinary criminal process, avoiding what he characterised as a circumvention of established procedure.
What the stay means and next steps
- The stay prevents VACB from proceeding with the FIRs and any probe actions until the Division Bench hears the appeals.
- The ED material that prompted the original single‑judge order will form part of the pleadings in the pending appeals, which are listed after four weeks.
- Separate parallel investigations—ED, SFIO and VACB—raise questions about overlap and the proper forum for inquiry, matters likely to be canvassed in detailed submissions.
The stay does not extinguish the possibility of future criminal proceedings; it preserves the status quo while the High Court examines the legal and procedural propriety of the single-judge order. The Division Bench will consider the appellants’ challenge to the foundation and sufficiency of the material relied upon to direct registration of FIRs.
Context and wider implications
The case concerns allegations linked to the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd and purported payments that prompted scrutiny by central agencies. The interplay between the ED, SFIO and state vigilance bodies in corruption and financial probe matters has been the subject of debate in recent times, especially where high-profile public figures are involved. Legal experts often note that questions about the competence of agencies and the existence of a cognisable offence can be determinative at the threshold stage when courts consider whether to order FIRs.
For now, the legal contest will proceed in the High Court. The outcome of the hearing after four weeks will determine whether the VACB probe may be revived or whether the single‑judge order will be set aside permanently. Until then, the stay preserves the petitioners from VACB action arising from the October directive.
| Party | Action before stay | Current position |
|---|---|---|
| Pinarayi Vijayan | Directed FIR registration by single judge (9 Oct) | FIR registration and VACB probe stayed |
| Veena T and P A Mohamed Riyas | Named in single-judge order | Included in appeal; protected by stay |
The High Court’s measured interim order reflects the institutional role of the judiciary in adjudicating procedural fairness and the scope of investigatory powers. Parties on all sides are expected to file detailed affidavits and argue points of law when the matter returns to the Bench.
