The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, 29 September reserved its verdict on a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Vijayan, and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas — a former State Minister and sitting Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] legislator — in the CMRL-Exalogic case. The ruling will determine whether Kerala's state police must register a case without first conducting a preliminary inquiry.

What the Case Is About

The case centres on alleged financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a company associated with Veena Vijayan. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) gathered the material in question during its own investigation into these alleged transactions.

Advocate K.M. Shahjahan filed the plea, seeking registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on information furnished by the ED to the state police.

Arguments Heard by Justice Badharudeen

Justice A. Badharudeen reserved the verdict after hearing detailed arguments from both sides. The Kerala state government opposed the plea, contending that an FIR cannot be registered without a preliminary inquiry into the allegations. The Advocate General further argued that the primary material the ED relied upon was a diary, and that an FIR cannot be registered solely on the basis of such a document.

The government also maintained that the petition itself was not maintainable and that a preliminary inquiry was a necessary precondition before any case could be lodged.

ED's Stand Before the Court

The ED produced before the court a letter it had sent to the Director General of Police recommending the registration of a case against Vijayan and Riyas. The agency submitted additional material, including statements recorded during its inquiry.

When the court asked whether these statements had been shared with the government, the ED acknowledged that complete copies had not been handed over. The agency maintained, however, that the information in its letter was sufficient to register a case, and indicated it was prepared to provide copies of the statements if the police required them.

The court, notably, observed that the ED qualifies as an investigating agency — pushing back against the government's argument that the ED's role is limited to collecting information and acting within its own jurisdiction.

SIT Already in Place

An Special Investigation Team (SIT) has already been constituted by the Satheesan government on the basis of the ED's letter to the State Police chief. The High Court's forthcoming ruling will clarify whether the state police are obligated to register an FIR independently of any preliminary inquiry, adding a significant legal dimension to the ongoing political controversy.

What Comes Next

With the verdict now reserved, all eyes are on Justice Badharudeen's ruling, which could compel the Kerala police to act on the ED's recommendation or affirm the state government's position that a preliminary inquiry must precede any FIR. The outcome carries major implications for Pinarayi Vijayan, one of Kerala's most prominent political figures, and for the broader accountability debate surrounding the CMRL-Exalogic transactions.