Full Breakdown
Kerala High Court Reviews FIR Requirement in CMRL-Exalogic Probe
By Drooid · · How we work
Court Hearing on FIR Requirement
On September 26 2026, the Kerala High Court heard activist K M Shajahan’s petition for a First Information Report after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) shared material indicating possible offences. Justice A. Badharudeen asked whether the state police must register an FIR immediately upon receipt of information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, or whether a preliminary inquiry is permissible. The court ordered the ED to produce the sealed records it had forwarded to the police and set a further hearing for September 29.
Background of the CMRL-Exalogic Allegations
The probe concerns payments by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions, owned by T Veena, daughter of former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The ED alleges the payments were “fraudulent” bribes. Its report, sent to the state police chief on September 7, recommended registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Data and Financial Findings
- Payment period: March 4 2017 – May 18 2019.
- Amount alleged: Media cite INR3.28 crore and INR2.78 crore as “fraudulent payments” for purported IT-consultancy services.
- The ED calls the agreement a “sham” and says the sum is disproportionate to Vijayan’s known income.
Official Statements & Responses
- Ramesh Chennithala, home minister: “The ED has the right (to seek the registration of a case)… a law-enforcement agency, upon receipt of such communication, cannot ignore it.”
- Advocate General K. Jaju Babu: argued an FIR can be filed only after a preliminary inquiry, calling the petition a “guise of public interest.”
- ED counsel Advocate Jaisankar V Nair: maintained the information must be acted upon without delay and that the sealed cover will be produced at the next hearing.
- Pinarayi Vijayan: denied wrongdoing, saying the contract was lawful, taxes were paid, and the timing pre-dated his daughter’s marriage. He described the probe as politically motivated.
Criticism & Opposition
Vijayan’s remarks form the main opposition to the ED’s allegations. He questioned the criminality of the payments, suggested the investigation targets his family, and accused opposition parties of using the case to weaken the Left Democratic Front.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Amount of alleged bribe: The Print reports INR2.78 crore, while The Hindu reports INR3.28 crore. Both attribute the figure to the ED’s findings.
- Nature of services: Vijayan asserts Exalogic provided legitimate IT consultancy; the ED describes the agreement as a “sham” with no actual service rendered. The court has yet to examine the sealed documents that could clarify these discrepancies.
What’s Next
The High Court will review the sealed ED records on September 29 and decide whether the state police must file an FIR or may continue with a preliminary inquiry. The Special Investigation Team, headed by Crime Branch ADGP H Venkatesh and supervised by SP P. Vikraman, has a 30-day mandate to examine the ED material before any further legal action.