India
Supreme Court pauses Kerala vigilance probe for seven days
The FIR stays active while investigative powers are temporarily limited
The FIR stays active while investigative powers are temporarily limited
The Supreme Court has paused for one week a vigilance case over alleged payments of about Rs 3.28 crore from to Veena T’s . The claim is that Exalogic received the money without providing services. The case also names former Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his son-in-law, . All three deny wrongdoing, and the claims have not been proved.
The case became a formal after the Kerala High Court ordered the to register one on October 9. On October 15, a refused permission to appeal, saying an accused need not be heard before an is registered. The Supreme Court has now paused the probe for seven days, but the remains active. The petitioners must seek temporary protection or a longer pause from the High Court, while the and political opponents continue to challenge the case.
The next procedural step was for the petitioners to place their challenge before the Kerala High Court Division Bench and seek or a longer stay. The court would then decide whether to continue restraining the , examine the FIR challenge, or allow investigative action to resume. The available order did not resolve those issues.
The Supreme Court temporarily paused investigative steps for one week so the petitioners could file their challenge before the High Court Division Bench. The order stayed the investigation, not the itself, and did not . The therefore remained operative while investigative action was temporarily stalled.
A Supreme Court bench permitted Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T and P A Mohamed Riyas to pursue their challenge before the Kerala . The order restored access to appellate review after the High Court had rejected their . It did not decide whether the alleged payments were illegal or whether the accused were guilty.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Division Bench refused leave to appeal. Their challenge focused on the procedure used to order the FIR and sought protection from further investigative action. They continued to deny wrongdoing, while the vigilance allegations had not been adjudicated on their merits.
The dismissed applications by Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T and P A Mohamed Riyas seeking permission to challenge the single-judge order. It held that an accused has no legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered. The ruling left the vigilance case and investigation in place.
Following the High Court’s direction, the vigilance authorities registered s concerning the alleged payments from CMRL to Exalogic Solutions. The step changed the matter from an inquiry into a formal criminal investigation. The allegations remained unproven, and the did not establish guilt.
Justice A Badharudeen directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a case under the against the three named respondents and others. The set aside the decision to conduct only a preliminary inquiry and held that the material forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate did not require another preliminary examination.
The reported alleged payments totaling about Rs 3.28 crore from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited to Veena T and her company, , without corresponding IT consultancy services. The ED forwarded material to Kerala authorities, contributing to later vigilance proceedings. The allegations remain subject to investigation.
The state proceeded through a and preliminary inquiry rather than directing an immediate FIR. The approach was challenged as legally inadequate because the available material allegedly disclosed cognisable offences. The proceedings also named Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T and Veena’s husband, P A Mohamed Riyas.