Supreme Court stays probe against Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL bribery case for a week

The Supreme Court stayed for a week the investigation into the alleged CMRL bribery case involving former Keralam chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter and son-in-law. It allowed them to pursue an appeal before a Kerala High Court division bench

New Delhi: In temporary relief to former Keralam chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed for a week the investigation against him, his daughter and her husband in the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) bribery case.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana permitted Vijayan and the others to pursue an appeal before a division bench of the Kerala High Court against a single judge’s order.

---

The apex court was hearing petitions filed by Vijayan and others challenging the single judge’s order directing the registration of an FIR based on information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

“We set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioners to pursue the appeal before the division bench. We make it clear that our observations are limited to the issue at hand, that is, the locus of the petitioners to prefer the appeal, and are not an expression of opinion on the merits.

“To enable the petitioners to pursue the appeal on its merits, we give them liberty to pursue the appeal and seek interim relief in accordance with law. To enable them to do so, we direct that the investigation in the impugned First Information Report shall remain stayed for a week,” the bench said.

The Supreme Court also cautioned the ED against encroaching on the statutory domain of other agencies.

During the hearing, the apex court told the ED to pursue its investigation and prosecution within the limits of its statutory powers.

“Do your examination under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. File your complaint… You have got a scheduled offence. Go ahead with your prosecution. Don’t extend your hand beyond your statutory limits. We are making your client (ED) very clear. Don’t use the process of statutory powers to meddle into the statutory domain of other entities,” the court said.

“We are fully clear about what you have done and what the high court has done. We will maintain the FIR but no investigation until and unless these issues are decided by the appellate court,” Justice Bagchi orally observed.

The remarks came after advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the ED, defended the high court order and argued that the accused had no right to challenge it because the ED’s information disclosed a cognisable offence.

The Supreme Court said it was not questioning the ED’s authority to investigate the alleged hawala transactions or prosecute the money-laundering offence.

However, it emphasised that once the ED had informed the state of an alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was for the state to act in accordance with the law.

The apex court said the high court had “acted in haste” in directing the registration of an FIR against Vijayan and the others.

On October 15, the Kerala High Court rejected applications by Vijayan, his daughter Veena T and her husband, P. A. Mohamed Riyas, seeking permission to appeal against the single judge’s October 9 order. The high court held that “an accused in a corruption case has no legal right to be heard before registering FIR”.

In their appeals, the three had argued that the single judge had directed the registration of the FIR without hearing them.

They also contended that the petition in which the October 9 order was passed was in the nature of a public interest litigation (PIL) and should therefore have been heard by a division bench dealing with PILs.

The appeals followed the registration of two FIRs by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau’s (VACB) Special Investigation Unit-1 against Vijayan and his family members in connection with the case.

On October 9, the high court directed the VACB to register a case based on a report submitted by the ED to the state police.

The ED had sought registration of a case based on evidence gathered during its investigation and searches conducted under the PMLA.

The agency has alleged that CMRL made fraudulent payments of Rs 2.78 crore to Veena’s now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions, under the guise of IT consultancy services.