KOCHI: The High Court raised concerns over the mention of political leaders' names in the monthly allowance case against the Chief Minister and his daughter. The court observed that these references, made by the Interim Settlement Board, were based on statements from the finance officer of CMRL, rather than accurate documents. The court noted that claims of remuneration being paid for non-existent services were also reliant solely on the officer's statement.

In another matter, the court addressed allegations related to the chief minister's involvement in sand removal at the Thottappally spillway. KMML carries out sand removal operations to prevent flooding, and the removed sand is sold to CMRL at market rates as per a contract. The court found no evidence to substantiate the claim that the Chief Minister interfered in this process.

Regarding KREML's 2021 application for a land concession for mining, the court clarified that the Chief Minister followed standard protocol by forwarding the application to the Chief Secretary with directions to make an appropriate decision. It also pointed out that two similar applications were rejected by the government in 2023, which should be considered in context.

The High Court emphasised that bringing public servants to a criminal court on mere suspicion is a grave matter that could damage their dignity, self-respect, and societal standing.

Opposition Leader Responds to Investigation Updates

Opposition leader V.D. Satheesan stated that investigations into the monthly allowance allegations against the Chief Minister's daughter remain ongoing. He highlighted that the details regarding the rejection of petitions for a Vigilance investigation are still unclear but maintained that the court order does not constitute a setback for the UDF.

Satheesan explained that the case has two dimensions: if it is proven that CMRL transferred funds to the Chief Minister's daughter's account in exchange for favours, it would fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act and require a Vigilance investigation. However, if there is no evidence of quid pro quo, such an investigation would not apply, and the SFIO will investigate the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The opposition leader added that while money has been deposited into Veena Vijayan's account, employees have testified that no services were rendered to the company. He expressed uncertainty about the progress and outcome of the ongoing cases.