NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court Division Bench order refusing to entertain appeals filed by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas in the CMRL–Exalogic case. The top court termed the Division Bench's decision erroneous and held that their appeals should have been heard.
The Supreme Court observed that the appeals ought to have been considered because a single judge of the High Court had directed the registration of an FIR, an investigation and the submission of a report. The court stayed the Vigilance investigation for 10 days to enable the petitioners to pursue their appeals. The court allowed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to continue its investigation. It also questioned why the state government had not appealed against the single judge's order after the demand for a preliminary inquiry was rejected.
The Supreme Court did not quash or stay the FIR registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) or the ED's Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR). The stay applies to the Vigilance investigation for the specified period, not to the registration of the FIR itself. The court said the petitioners could approach the High Court seeking a stay of the proceedings and protection against arrest. The High Court should decide any such request independently and in accordance with the law. A special vacation bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter.
The High Court Division Bench had refused to entertain the appeals on the ground that Vijayan and the other petitioners were not parties to the original petition filed by K. M. Shahjahan. It also noted that the single judge's order directing the registration of an FIR did not specifically name them.
The Supreme Court disagreed, observing that the ED's report referred to the petitioners and that the proceedings could directly affect them. It held that they were entitled to challenge the single judge's order.
The court also noted that the Vigilance FIR had been registered pursuant to the single judge's direction, which followed information supplied by the ED. It was not a case in which the Vigilance agency had independently registered the FIR before the court's intervention.
The Division Bench had held that an accused person had no right to insist on being heard before an FIR was registered. Although Shahjahan and the ED advanced this argument before the Supreme Court, the top court did not accept it.
In explaining the legal position, the Supreme Court also referred to Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The reference concerned the legal framework for ordering an investigation on a complaint involving a public servant; it did not amount to a decision on the merits of the allegations against the petitioners.
The proceedings raise two key legal questions:
The Supreme Court has not conclusively decided these issues. They remain for consideration in the appropriate proceedings.
The Supreme Court observed that the ED had shared information with the state government under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The state government and its agencies must then act in accordance with the law.
The court said the ED should not interfere in investigations conducted by those agencies and that it lacked the authority to do so. This observation concerns the limits of the ED's role in investigations undertaken by state agencies; it does not prevent the ED from continuing its own investigation.
The court did not express an opinion on the validity of the separate ECIR. Any challenge to that proceeding remains open to be raised before the appropriate forum.
HOME
LATEST
NOTIFIED NEWS
POLL
KERALA 
EDITORIAL 
INDIA 
WORLD 
BUSINESS 
CINEMA 
SPORTS 
LIFESTYLE 
SPECIAL 
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 
| 
