Former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has failed to get relief from the Kerala High Court in the CMRL-Exalogic case. On Thursday, October 15, 2026, a Division Bench of Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John dismissed applications by Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil (Veena T), her husband P.A. Mohamed Riyas and others seeking leave to appeal a single-judge order that directed the Vigilance to register an FIR against them.
The ruling keeps the vigilance case on track and sharpens an already heated political fight in the state, where Vijayan now sits on the Opposition benches.
What the case is about
The matter concerns alleged irregularities in payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions, an IT company owned by Veena. According to reports, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that CMRL paid about Rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic as IT consultancy fees without corresponding services being delivered. These allegations have not been proven in court, and Vijayan and the CPI(M) have consistently called the case politically motivated.
After the ED shared material with the state, the government had chosen to hold a preliminary inquiry through a Special Investigation Team instead of registering an FIR straight away.
The October 9 single-judge order
That approach was challenged by advocate K.M. Shajahan, a former private secretary to the late Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan. On October 9, Justice A. Badharudeen allowed his petition, held that a preliminary inquiry was not the right course when the material disclosed cognisable offences, and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The government complied and handed the material to the VACB.
Vijayan, Veena and Riyas were not parties to that writ petition, so they had to seek the court's leave before they could appeal it.
What the Division Bench held
The Bench turned down the leave applications. Key points from the ruling, as reported:
- An accused in a corruption case has no legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered.
- Where the ED supplies material disclosing cognisable offences, no preliminary inquiry is required.
- The single judge's order does not take away the applicants' right to pursue constitutional or statutory remedies against the FIR, such as a challenge under Article 226 or a plea to quash proceedings later.
During the hearing, senior counsel for the applicants argued that a third party could not seek an FIR, that natural justice was violated because they were not heard, and that the plea should have been treated as a public interest litigation. Advocate General Jaju Babu told the court the government had followed the single judge's direction.
Key facts at a glance
| Court | Kerala High Court, Division Bench |
| Judges | Justice K. Natarajan, Justice Johnson John |
| Date of ruling | October 15, 2026 |
| Applicants | Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T, P.A. Mohamed Riyas and others |
| Order challenged | October 9 single-judge direction to register a Vigilance FIR |
| Original petitioner | Advocate K.M. Shajahan |
| Outcome | Leave to appeal refused; other legal remedies remain open |
Political reactions
The verdict drew sharp responses across party lines. BJP leader Shone George welcomed the order and said Vijayan should step down as Leader of the Opposition. Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan, whose own earlier plea on the CMRL matter had been dismissed by the High Court, also welcomed the ruling.
CPI(M) state secretary M.V. Govindan said the party would study the judgment and respond both politically and legally, calling the case false and a planned move against Vijayan, Riyas and the party. State Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said the order was not a setback for the government and that it had acted in line with the law, not out of vendetta.
What it means for Kerala
For voters, the case has become a test of how the new government handles a probe involving its main rival. The CPI(M) has accused the ruling side of acting in haste, while the Congress-led front and the BJP say the court has now settled that an FIR was the correct route. Expect the issue to dominate Assembly debates and television studios in the weeks ahead.
What happens next
The vigilance investigation continues. Vijayan and the others can still approach the courts against the FIR itself, and the CPI(M) has signalled it will examine its legal options. Any such petition, and the pace of the VACB probe, will decide the next chapter in this long-running case.
Comments (0)