No relief for Pinarayi Vijayan in High Court; monthly payments case moves ahead for vigilance probe

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has dismissed applications filed by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and six others seeking permission to appeal against a single-judge order directing the registration of an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic monthly payments case. The ruling leaves the petitioners’ challenge to the single-judge order unsuccessful through this route, while the Vigilance investigation can proceed.

A Division Bench comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John held that accused persons in corruption cases have no legal right to insist on being heard before an FIR is registered. The Bench dismissed the applications seeking permission to appeal after hearing arguments, rendering the proposed appeals infructuous. Besides Vijayan, the petitioners included his daughter, T. Veena, and son-in-law and former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas.

The single judge had directed the registration of an FIR and an investigation based on a report the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had forwarded to the State Police Chief concerning financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions.

The Bench held that when information forwarded by the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act contains facts warranting the registration of a case, a preliminary inquiry is not necessary. It also clarified that the single-judge order had not affected the petitioners’ right to challenge the FIR. The original order directing the registration of a case was passed on a petition filed by advocate K.M. Shahjahan.

Supreme Court precedents

The principles underlying the order include Supreme Court rulings that a case can be registered without a preliminary inquiry when there are indications that a public servant abused official position for corruption while holding public office.
The Supreme Court has also held that public servants facing corruption allegations have no right to insist on being heard before an FIR is registered. Further, a senior officer may proceed to register a case without a preliminary inquiry when the available information provides sufficient grounds for doing so.

What are the options now?

The petitioners can approach the Supreme Court against the High Court’s order dismissing their applications seeking permission to appeal. Alternatively, they can approach the High Court with fresh grounds seeking to quash the Vigilance FIR and subsequent proceedings. Pinarayi Vijayan and the others are planning to approach the Supreme Court against the ruling.