The Kerala High Court's Division Bench on 15 October 2026 refused permission to former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and co-petitioners to appeal against a Single Bench order directing a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) probe and registration of an FIR into controversial financial transactions between CMRL and Exalogic — a company linked to Vijayan's daughter T. Veena. The ruling, in what has come to be known as the Masappadi case, has sharply escalated political pressure on Vijayan, who currently serves as Leader of the Opposition in Kerala.

What the Division Bench Decided

The Division Bench declined to grant the petitioners leave to challenge the earlier Single Bench order, which had directed the VACB to register an FIR and investigate the CMRL-Exalogic transactions under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court's decision effectively neutralised the central argument advanced by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) — that Vijayan and the other petitioners had not been heard before the Single Bench passed its order.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had strongly opposed granting permission to appeal, had on Wednesday registered two Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) — the ED's equivalent of an FIR. The state government, however, had argued in favour of the petitioners, a position Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shone George described as 'an ugly act.'

BJP Demands Vijayan's Resignation as LoP

BJP state vice-president Shone George — who first raised the issue that snowballed into the Masappadi controversy — called for Vijayan's immediate resignation as Leader of the Opposition. 'Vijayan has no moral right to continue as Leader of the Opposition. The Left Democratic Front (LDF) must meet immediately and ensure that he quits,' George said.

George also targeted Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, arguing the Division Bench's ruling was equally a setback for the state government. 'This is also a setback for the V.D. Satheesan government, which did its bit to rescue Vijayan. That effort has fallen flat,' he said.

George further questioned the VACB's handling of the case, asking why the agency had registered two FIRs but had not yet summoned anyone for questioning.

Historical Significance of the Case

Notably, if the VACB proceeds to summon Vijayan for questioning, he would become only the second former Chief Minister of Kerala to come under the agency's radar. The first was K. Karunakaran, who was previously named in a VACB FIR. The parallel underscores the gravity of the legal jeopardy now facing Vijayan.

All eyes are now on whether the VACB and the ED will issue notices to the accused — including Vijayan, Veena, her husband, and CPI-M MLA P.A. Mohammed Riyas — requiring them to appear for questioning.

Vijayan's Legal Team Eyes Supreme Court

According to reports, Vijayan's legal team is charting its next course of action. A primary option under consideration is approaching the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Division Bench's order. The outcome of that bid — if pursued — would determine whether the VACB and ED investigations proceed unimpeded.

The verdict is expected to intensify the political confrontation between the BJP and the CPI-M in Kerala, with legal proceedings and investigations into the financial transactions continuing on parallel tracks.