The Kerala High Court asked the state why it ordered a preliminary enquiry in the alleged CMRL bribery case. The hearing sharpened questions over due process after FIRs were registered against Pinarayi Vijayan and his family members.
Image used for representational purposes only
Kochi,Oct 13, 2026 13:38 IST
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday asked the state government why it had ordered a preliminary enquiry after receiving information from the Enforcement Directorate in the alleged CMRL bribery case on offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Pinarayi Vijayan and others.
The question came up before a bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John while hearing applications by Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband P A Mohamed Riyas, who are seeking leave to appeal against a single judge's October 9 direction to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against them.
Advocate General Jaju Babu told the bench that the government ordered a preliminary enquiry because it wanted to verify the allegations contained in the ED's information. He said the agency had not given the state police several other materials connected with the matter.
In their appeals, Vijayan, Veena and Riyas said they were not heard by the single judge before the direction to lodge the FIR was issued. During the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the bench asked the appellants why they had not challenged the FIR when it had already been registered. It also asked whether an accused or a proposed accused must always be heard before an FIR is registered in a criminal case.
The appellants' lawyers argued that they should have been heard because the court was dealing with a writ petition and its order would affect them. "It was not a case of a police officer registering an FIR in the routine course," they said. They also argued that once the High Court has ordered registration of an FIR, the appellants cannot challenge it before the same court. They further said the petition in which the single judge passed the order was in the nature of a public interest litigation and should therefore have been heard by a division bench that deals with PILs.
The court said it would continue hearing the matter in the post-lunch session. The appeals were filed after the VACB's Special Investigation Unit-1 registered two FIRs on Monday against Vijayan and his family members in connection with the alleged CMRL bribery case. On October 9, the High Court had directed registration of a case on the basis of a report submitted by the ED to the state police. The ED had sought registration of a case on the basis of evidence gathered during its investigation and searches under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and has alleged that CMRL made fraudulent payments of Rs 2.78 crore to Veena's now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, in the guise of IT consultancy services.
The hearing focused on the state's decision to order a preliminary enquiry, the appellants' claim that they were not heard before the single judge's order, and the FIRs registered by the VACB on the basis of the ED's report in the alleged CMRL bribery case.
- Ends