The Kerala High Court on Monday, 26 October 2026, stayed a single judge's order directing the registration of a Vigilance FIR against former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena, and son-in-law and Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI-M] MLA Mohammed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic case. The stay offers significant interim relief to the three, who had moved the Division Bench after the Supreme Court cleared their path to do so.

Division Bench Admits Appeals, Halts Investigation

A Division Bench comprising Justices K. M. Natarajan and Johnson John admitted the appeals filed by Vijayan, Veena, Riyas, and others, challenging the 9 October order of the single judge. The bench stayed the single judge's judgment and ordered that further investigation into the FIR remain in abeyance until further orders. The case has been posted for final hearing after three weeks.

How the Case Reached the Division Bench

The development follows the Supreme Court's intervention on 21 October, when it held that Vijayan and the others were entitled to challenge the single judge's order before the Division Bench. The apex court had simultaneously granted an interim stay on the investigation to enable the High Court to hear their appeals — effectively setting the stage for Monday's proceedings.

Arguments by the Appellants

Senior advocates appearing for the appellants raised several procedural and jurisdictional objections. They argued that the single judge had directed the registration of an FIR without hearing those directly affected, and that the original petitioner had bypassed the procedure available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The defence further contended that the single judge had exceeded the court's jurisdiction by directing the FIR — a decision that ordinarily rests with the investigating agency. The appellants also questioned whether material provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) disclosed a cognisable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and argued that transactions involving Exalogic Solutions — a company owned by Veena — did not by themselves establish criminal liability against Vijayan or Riyas.

State Government and ED Positions

The state government informed the court that it had initially constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into material received from the ED. The Advocate General said the government subsequently decided to register the FIR following the single judge's findings. The ED opposed a stay on further investigation, arguing that the state was obliged to register an FIR when information disclosed a cognisable offence. Counsel for the original petitioner also defended the proceedings.

Background: What the CMRL-Exalogic Case Is About

The case centres on alleged irregularities in financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a firm linked to Veena. The ED had shared material relating to these transactions with the state police. On 9 October, the single judge directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against Vijayan, Veena, Riyas, and others, and set aside the government's decision to proceed via the SIT's preliminary inquiry. Monday's Division Bench order does not adjudicate the merits of the allegations — those will be examined during the final hearing scheduled in three weeks.