The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 21 October 2026, set aside a Kerala High Court order that had declined to entertain appeals filed by former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, son-in-law and former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas, and other accused in the CMRL-Exalogic alleged pay-off case. The apex court granted the petitioners seven days to approach the High Court's Division Bench and simultaneously stayed the investigation into the vigilance FIR for the same period.

What the Supreme Court Ordered

A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed that the probe by the Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) shall remain stayed for seven days to allow the petitioners to file their appeals and seek interim relief before the appropriate appellate forum. The court was categorical that its stay was limited to facilitating the filing of appeals and would not prevent the Division Bench from independently deciding any interim-relief application.

Orally, Justice Bagchi observed: 'We are not against any investigation. We will maintain the FIR but no investigation until and unless the issues are decided by the appellate court.'

Why the Court Upheld Locus Standi

The apex court rejected arguments by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the original writ petitioner that Vijayan and the others had no right to challenge the single judge's directions. The bench found that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case establishing their locus standi to pursue the appeals, noting that the single judge had specifically recorded a finding that material furnished by the ED disclosed a cognizable offence, making registration of an FIR obligatory.

The court further observed that the single judge had gone beyond merely directing registration of the FIR — it had additionally ordered commencement of the investigation and submission of a final report, which required compliance with conditions under the special law. Since these findings could affect the petitioners in their separate proceedings challenging the FIR, they could not be denied an opportunity to contest them before the appellate forum.

Notably, the apex court underscored: 'This is not a case where, on the receipt of communication under Section 66(2) PMLA, the state government had registered an FIR on its own. On the contrary, the registration of FIR and commencement of investigation were pursuant to the order passed by the Constitutional Court.'

Background: The CMRL-Exalogic Allegations

The case concerns alleged payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, a company founded by T. Veena, during the first Vijayan-led government in Kerala. The ED has alleged that Exalogic received ₹3.28 crore from CMRL for services that were reportedly never rendered, and claimed the payments were made due to political influence, effectively amounting to a bribe to the former chief minister.

Pinarayi Vijayan has been named as the first accused and T. Veena as the second accused, among seven persons named in the case. The proceedings were triggered by an October 9 order of a single judge of the Kerala High Court directing registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of material communicated by the ED.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

After the single judge's order, Vigilance Director Manoj Abraham directed the formation of a probe team, with Deputy Inspector General of Police Thomson Jose supervising the investigation. Vijayan, Veena, Riyas, and others then moved the Kerala High Court's Division Bench, which declined to stay the single judge's directions and reserved its decision on whether they could even maintain appeals against an order passed in proceedings to which they were not parties. That refusal prompted the petitioners to escalate to the Supreme Court.

What Happens Next

The petitioners must now approach the Kerala High Court's Division Bench within the seven-day window granted by the Supreme Court. The apex court has clarified that its observations are confined solely to the question of locus standi and will not prejudice the merits of their appeals. The Division Bench will independently decide any applications for interim relief in accordance with law, and the VACB investigation remains on hold until that process unfolds.