New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan seeking a probe against Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena in connection with the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) scam.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court verdict that had upheld the Vigilance Court’s decision to reject the request for an investigation into the alleged corruption case.

At the outset, CJI Gavai told the petitioner’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, “We have been consistently saying, fight your political battles before the electorate and not in the Court.”

When the counsel argued that the High Court had found some merit in the allegations, Justice Chandran responded, “It doesn’t,” while questioning some of the averments made in the plea. “This is why the Chief Justice said, fight your battles in the election,” he remarked.

Guru Krishna Kumar contended that three facts were undisputed — that there was a contract between CMRL and the company owned by the Chief Minister’s daughter, that ₹1.72 crore was paid to her firm, and that CMRL had admitted before the Income Tax Interim Settlement Board that no services were rendered. He argued that the High Court had erred in insisting on “proven facts” at the pre-cognisance stage.

However, the bench made it clear it was not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.  Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for CMRL but was not required to make submissions, as the Court dismissed the case soon after hearing the petitioner’s side.

The case relates to allegations by Kuzhalnadan that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd paid monthly sums of ₹5 lakh to Veena Thaikkandiyil and ₹3 lakh to her company, Exalogic Solutions, under the guise of IT and marketing consultancy fees. The payments, he alleged, were actually gratification to obtain favourable decisions from the Chief Minister.

Kuzhalnadan had earlier approached the Kerala High Court after the Vigilance Court refused to order an investigation. In his 59-page judgment, Justice K Babu of the High Court observed that the MLA had failed to present any facts constituting an offence and had based his complaint solely on suspicions.

The court had noted that an unnecessary investigation against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act could unfairly tarnish their career or reputation, observing that “being called to appear before a criminal court as an accused is a serious matter that affects one’s dignity, self-respect and image in society.”

However, the High Court clarified that the petitioner could file a fresh complaint in the future if sufficient materials were produced. 
(With LiveLaw inputs.)