The Kerala High Court has directed the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other suspected persons in the CMRL-Exalogic case, acting on information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Justice A Badharudeen passed the order while allowing a petition filed by advocate KM Shajahan, who had challenged the State government’s decision to initiate a preliminary inquiry through a Special Investigation Team (SIT) without first registering an FIR.
The Court set aside that decision, holding that the allegations disclosed possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the State’s vigilance agency.
It directed the Director of the VACB to obtain the information forwarded by the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and register an FIR against all suspected persons for the offences disclosed in the communication.
The Court also directed the head of the SIT or the Director General of Police, who had custody of the ED’s information, to transfer it to the VACB without delay. The ED was instructed to forward all supporting documents necessary for the registration of the case.
ED’s communication leaves no room for another preliminary inquiry
Explaining the legal basis for its decision, the Court said State police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when information shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA discloses a scheduled offence that falls within their jurisdiction.
The Court clarified that this obligation does not eliminate the possibility of an independent preliminary inquiry in every case. However, it found that the material supplied by the ED’s Cochin Zonal Office contained sufficient details about the alleged financial irregularities involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited.
The communication, dated September 7, 2026, contained adequate preliminary material indicating the possible commission of cognisable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court held.
In these circumstances, the Court concluded that no further preliminary inquiry was necessary before registering the FIR and that the State police were required to act on the information provided.
Dispute centres on financial transactions involving Exalogic
The case concerns allegations of corruption linked to financial transactions between CMRL and Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by Veena Thaikkandiyil, the daughter of Vijayan.
The ED had shared information with the Kerala police following its investigation into the transactions. According to the allegations raised in the petition, the material warranted an investigation into possible offences involving Vijayan, his daughter, her husband and former Minister PA Muhammed Riyas.
Instead of registering an FIR, the State government had constituted an SIT headed by Crime Branch Additional Director General of Police H Venkatesh to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
Shajahan challenged that approach, arguing that the information provided by the ED disclosed potential offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the PMLA. He sought an FIR against those allegedly involved, along with the transfer of the investigation to the VACB.
He had also sought directions requiring the State police and the Vigilance Director to act on complaints he submitted on September 22.
ED backed demand for FIR; State questioned petition
During the proceedings, the ED supported Shajahan’s demand for registration of an FIR. Its standing counsel, Jaishankar V Nair, submitted that the agency had identified several transactions requiring investigation by the State police or another competent authority.
The State, represented by Advocate General Jaju Babu, raised a preliminary objection to the petition’s maintainability. He argued that although Shajahan had presented the matter as one involving public interest, the proceedings had been instituted as a private writ petition.
The State also contended that receiving information from the ED did not prevent its agencies from independently assessing whether the material disclosed an offence warranting an FIR.
The High Court rejected the objection concerning Shajahan’s standing, holding that he was entitled to approach the Court as an Indian citizen and whistle-blower.
With its ruling, the Court has directed the State’s vigilance machinery to move beyond the preliminary inquiry and formally register a corruption case on the basis of the material supplied by the ED.