Kerala HC defers Vigilance probe against Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL case

The High Court, on Monday, ordered to keep in abeyance the investigation pursuant to two FIRs filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) against Kerala's Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and MLA Mohammad Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic monthly payoff case. The Division Bench, comprising Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John, ordered that the investigation shall be deferred for a period of four weeks. The court, acting on the order of the Supreme Court, noted that a detailed hearing is required in the case and posted the case for hearing on November 26.

There was no stay on the FIRs which were registered by the VACB on October 12 following a Single Bench order. The VACB has registered cases under the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Although Pinarayi moved the Division Bench with a special leave petition to file an appeal, it was dismissed on October 15, citing that the accused in a corruption case has no legal right to be heard before registering the FIR and that the accused persons are not entitled to demand a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in a corruption case.

The Supreme Court, on October 21, having considered the appeal petition filed by Pinarayi Vijayan and others, set aside the judgement of the Single Bench and permitted the appellants to pursue their appeals before the Division Bench. They were also given the liberty to seek interim relief in accordance with law. The SC had stayed the investigation for a period of ten days and said that it shall not be treated as a conclusive opinion expressed on interim relief. The SC also did not express any opinion on the validity of the ECIRs registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

Senior Advocates N Hariharan and Sidharth Luthra appeared for Mohammad Riyas and Pinarayi Vijayan respectively. During the hearing, Advocate Hariharan said that the petitioner K M Shahjahan short-circuited the procedure and approached the writ court at the first instance. He said that the parties were not heard by the Single Judge. It was also cited that no cognisable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out.

Advocate General K Jaju Babu told the court that the government acted with caution based on the information received from the ED and decided to conduct a preliminary probe. Later, when the Single Bench directed registration of FIR, the state respected the order, he said. The Additional Solicitor General of India representing the ED reiterated that there was sufficient material proving cognisable offence in the report submitted by the ED to the State Police Chief.

With the case being slated for a detailed hearing, Pinarayi Vijayan has got a temporary reprieve. The CPM has rallied behind him despite earlier legal setbacks and tried to portray the case as a political witchhunt. The UDF government, beset with internal dissent over the soft stand towards Pinarayi, can draw relief from the Division Bench order to halt the investigation in the case, as it vindicates its stand to proceed with caution and opt for a preliminary inquiry instead of immediate registration of an FIR based on the ED report.