Thiruvananthapuram: With the Enforcement Directorate confirming that a summons had been issued to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s son, Vivek Kiran, even as the Chief Minister continues to deny receiving it, the CPM appears to be attempting to deflect attention from the controversy.

As part of this attempt, the party’s mouthpiece carried a report claiming that the image of the summons published by Malayala Manorama a day earlier was fabricated. Notably, this allegation was not made by the Chief Minister himself during his press conference, nor by any of the ministers in the cabinet.

CPM's propaganda and the facts

Propaganda: It has come to light that the ED notice published over the past two days was forged.
Response: What the ED issued was not a notice but a summons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as part of an ongoing investigation.

Propaganda: The copies of the notices published on the 11th and 14th appear to be different.
Response: Yes, there is a difference because they are two different pages from the same summons. The document consists of three pages, all of which were published by Malayala Manorama on its front pages on the 11th, 12th and 13th.

Propaganda: The first image of the ED summons was enlarged to show the number and the address on it. The address, however, was written by hand.
Response: The image published on the first day was indeed the first page of the summons, which listed the address as `Vivek Kiran, Son of Pinarayi Vijayan, Cliff House, Thiruvananthapuram.' The address on the document was handwritten, apparently by the ED, with the intention of either dispatching it to that address or facilitating personal delivery.

Propaganda: The numbers on the images of the notices published on October 11 and 14 are different. The number and other details in the second notice do not match those in the first.
Response: The first number refers to the summons, while the second is the case number, which explains the difference. The number published on the 11th -- PMLA/SUMMON/KCZO/2023/769, was the summons number. It is marked `PMLA,' indicating that the summons was issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The number published on the 14th-- ECIR/KCZO/02/2020, is the case number. `ECIR' stands for Enforcement Case Information Report, and `KCZO,' which appears in both numbers, denotes the ED’s Kozhikode Zonal Office. The ED has confirmed that this case number relates to the SNC-Lavalin case.

Propaganda: Both the ED and Malayala Manorama speak about sending only one notice. How, then, are there two different notices?
Response: While the party mouthpiece incorrectly refers to the summons as a `notice,' it inadvertently acknowledges that the ED did issue a document. There are not two types of notices but a single summons comprising three pages. The two pages of the summons are now being wrongly presented as two separate notices.

Propaganda: The news was published even without verifying its credibility.
Response: To confirm the authenticity of the summons, the ED website provides a section called 'Verify Your Summons,' which can be checked using the summons number and the password printed on the document. When the summons number and password were entered, the ED’s official website confirmed that it was indeed a genuine summons. The document is uploaded under the section `Details of Summons Issued.'

Further, the number on the summons possessed by Malayala Manorama matches exactly with the one on the ED’s official website. Under the category 'Issued To,' the name listed is Vivek Kiran and the investigating officer is identified as P K Anand , details that also appear in Manorama’s report. This verification confirms the authenticity of the summons. Soon after, the ED also officially confirmed that a summons had been issued to Vivek Kiran.