Kerala Opposition Leader and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, along with his daughter T Veena and son-in-law MLA P A Mohammed Riyas, have approached the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench challenging a single-judge order that directed the registration of a first information report against them in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case. The three individuals filed separate petitions seeking “leave to appeal” on Monday, arguing that the order was passed without affording them a hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The move follows an October 9 ruling by Justice A Badharudeen, which set aside the State government’s decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team without registering an FIR and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register a case based on information forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Acting on that directive, the VACB’s Thiruvananthapuram Special Investigation Unit One registered two FIRs on Monday, naming Vijayan, Veena, Riyas, and ten others as accused.

The appeals are scheduled to be heard at 1:45 PM by a Division Bench comprising Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John. Since Vijayan, Veena, and Riyas were not parties to the original petition filed by activist K M Shajahan, they are treated as third parties and must first obtain the court’s permission before their substantive appeal can be considered.

Appeals Filed on Natural Justice Grounds

The primary contention in the writ appeals is that the single judge issued a binding direction to register an FIR against them without giving them an opportunity to be heard. Advocate Gilbert George Correya, representing the trio, explained, “Since we were not named as parties in the original petition, we are considered third parties in the eyes of the law. However, as the ruling directly affects us, the Division Bench must first grant us formal permission to appeal. Only after that permission is granted can our appeal be considered on its merits.”

The appeals also challenge the single judge’s finding that the information forwarded by the ED disclosed cognizable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners contend that the materials relied upon do not prima facie establish any offence and that the direction to register an FIR without prior government sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act is legally unsustainable.

VACB Registers Two FIRs Amid Allegations

The first FIR concerns alleged misuse of government machinery during Vijayan’s tenure as Chief Minister to favour Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited. The ED has alleged that monthly payments of ₹3.28 crore made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm owned by Veena, were effectively a bribe intended for Vijayan, as services were allegedly not rendered. The second FIR relates to suspected hawala transactions, with Riyas named as the first accused and Veena as the second. Authorities claim that money received as monthly payments was transferred abroad through shell companies.

The investigation will examine evidence including a red diary recovered during raids at associates’ residences, bank transactions, foreign currency exchanges, and the alleged use of benami SIM cards. The ED’s earlier report had flagged suspicions that funds received by Veena since 2017 were used by Riyas and his associates for hawala operations.

Single Judge’s Order Set in Motion

The controversy began when the ED shared information with the Kerala Police regarding financial transactions between CMRL and Exalogic. Instead of registering an FIR, the State constituted a Special Investigation Team to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Activist K M Shajahan moved the High Court seeking registration of an FIR and transfer of the probe to the VACB.

Justice Badharudeen allowed the petition, holding that the alleged offences fall under the PC Act, making the VACB the competent investigating authority. The court reasoned that a preliminary inquiry or prior sanction was not necessary given the gravity of the material and struck down the SIT formation order. The single judge relied on the ED’s findings, observing they prima facie disclosed an offence.

Division Bench to Hear Leave Petitions Today

With the VACB already registering FIRs, the Division Bench’s decision on the leave petitions will determine whether the appeals can proceed on merits. If permission is granted, the court will hear arguments on whether the single judge’s order violated natural justice and whether the ED’s information could justify immediate FIR registration without hearing the affected parties.

The development carries significant legal implications for the application of natural justice in criminal proceedings, particularly where third parties are directly affected by a court’s directive. The outcome will also shape the course of the investigation into the CMRL-Exalogic transactions, which has already gripped Kerala politics.

As the High Court prepares to take up the matter, all eyes are on the Division Bench to see whether it will grant leave and stay the operation of the FIRs, or allow the investigation to proceed while addressing the procedural concerns raised by Vijayan and his family.