Full Breakdown
Kerala High Court Halts FIR and Probe in Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) Pay-off Case Involving Former Chief Minister
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court stayed the First Information Report (FIR) and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) investigation against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, and son-in-law P. A. Mohammed Riyas in the CMRL pay-off case. The order also puts the VACB probe on hold for four weeks while the appeals are considered.
Background & Context
The case concerns payments from CMRL to Veena T’s defunct IT firm, Exalogic, for alleged consultancy services. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) linked the payments to possible money-laundering and forwarded a letter to the State Police Chief indicating a predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A single-judge order on October 9 directed the VACB to register an FIR, which the accused contested as ex parte.
Timeline
- October 9: Single judge ordered the VACB to register FIRs.
- October 15: High Court rejected applications seeking permission to appeal the order.
- October 21: Supreme Court stayed the VACB investigation for a week and referred the matter to a Division Bench.
- October 26, 2026: Division Bench to hear the appeal challenging the FIR order.
- November 25: Next hearing date posted by the High Court.
Data & Statistics
- The ED alleges CMRL transferred INR3.28 crore to Exalogic.
- Other reports cite INR2.78 crore for the same services.
- The stay of the FIR and investigation is set for four weeks.
Official Statements & Responses
- Senior advocate N. Hariharan, for Veena T and Riyas, said the ED’s information did not disclose a cognisable offence and the single judge acted without hearing the accused.
- Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, for Vijayan, argued an FIR cannot be registered solely on the ED’s claim and that a Serious Fraud Investigation Office probe should pre-empt other actions.
- Advocate General Jaju Babu noted the state received the ED’s report, formed a Special Investigation Team, but complied with the single-judge order by registering the FIR.
- The Enforcement Directorate maintained its letter identified a predicate offence and that no interim stay should be granted.
Criticism & Opposition
- M. V. Govindan, CPI(M) state secretary, called the case a “fabricated” attempt to target the party.
- Shone George, BJP state vice-president, described the High Court’s decision “unfortunate” and accused the state government of shielding the accused.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The payment amount is reported as INR3.28 crore by the ED and INR2.78 crore elsewhere, a discrepancy not yet reconciled.
- While the High Court has stayed the FIR and VACB probe, the ED’s anti-money-laundering investigation continues, with details undisclosed.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Though the case was initially projected as being against Veena and her now-defunct company Exalogic Solutions, it was intended to target Vijayan, Riyas and the CPI(M). The High Court has upheld the rule of law by not believing the false narratives in favour of continuing with the FIRs,” — Govindan
- “From the very start, the state government was thinking of ways to protect Vijayan, Veena and Riyas in the matter. That stand was repeated by the Advocate General who represented the state in the High Court,” — Shone George
What’s Next
The Division Bench will consider the appeals on October 26, 2026, with a further hearing on November 25. The interim order remains in effect pending final determination of the FIR and VACB investigation.