The Enforcement Directorate (ED) recently dispatched a letter to the Kerala State Police Chief, recommending a corruption probe against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter, T Veena. The federal agency alleges that Vijayan, during his tenure as Chief Minister, received a bribe of ₹3.28 crore from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) through his daughter's IT firm, Exalogic Solutions. The ED has urged the state police to register a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Sharing his perspective on the legal nuances of this development, Supreme Court Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj decodes the constitutional and statutory mandate governing such actions.

Is it common for the ED to write to the State Police Chief? Does the agency have the authority to share such findings?
Yes, this action is entirely grounded in the law. Under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002, the ED has a statutory obligation to share information. If, during a money laundering probe, the agency uncovers evidence indicating the violation of other laws, it is legally bound to notify the relevant authorities. In this specific scenario, because the ED discovered potential offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was required to pass this information to the state police. The process has a strong legal foundation.

Can the ED demand the registration of a case? Is the state police chief bound to act on it?
The ED can only recommend that the state police evaluate the shared information; it cannot legally force them to register an FIR. The ultimate authority to register a case and initiate prosecution rests with the state government and its police force. However, under normal circumstances, neither the state police chief nor the government can simply ignore information forwarded by a central agency under a central statute. The intelligence shared carries significant statutory weight.

How will the state government decide on the next course of action? Is this evidence enough for the Vigilance department to act?
If the state government feels that the evidence handed over by the ED requires further verification, it can order a preliminary inquiry to gather additional intelligence. On the other hand, if the state finds that the documents and facts forwarded are substantive enough to make a prima facie case, it can directly instruct the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR and proceed.

Is prior sanction required under the Prevention of Corruption Act to initiate action?
Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior sanction from the competent authority is mandatory for prosecution, not for the investigation itself. An investigation can be launched without waiting for such formal clearance.

What is the protocol since sitting MLAs are involved in this case?
Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are classified as public servants under the law. To prosecute them, prior sanction is required from the competent authority under Section 19. According to the landmark 1998 Supreme Court ruling in the Narasimha Rao case, the Speaker of the Assembly is the competent authority to grant sanction for sitting MLAs. However, as mentioned earlier, this does not bar agencies from conducting a thorough investigation before seeking that formal sanction.