The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed the operation of a Single Judge's order directing the registration of an FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Vijayan, and others in the CMRL-Exalogic case.

The Court admitted all four appeals challenging the Single Judge's order and directed that further investigation into the FIR be kept in abeyance for four weeks.

A coram of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John posted the appeals for the final hearing on November 25.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Veena T and her husband, Mohammed Riyas, argued that the Single Judge had rendered findings on the merits while directing the registration of the FIR, without hearing the persons who would be affected by the order.

He contended that the State had ordered a preliminary enquiry upon receiving the information from the Enforcement Directorate, but the Single Judge had effectively assumed the role of an investigating officer, which was not authorised by statute.

“The single judge enters into the shoes and boots of the investigating officer and thereafter deals with the merits. That was a function which was essentially a function of the executor which has been empowered by the statute….policing is a state subject. Under the 7th Schedule policing is a state subject. As far as the centre is concerned under Article 73 it has powers to legislate in relation to subjects with a proviso. The proviso is that where the domain is occupied by the state the centre is prevented from legislating. The ED happens to be an organ of the centre. Reference is made to the state police. A direction cannot be given to the state police by the ED to register an FIR. The intent and purpose of 66(2) is only to share information nothing beyond that.” he argued

He contended that no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out, as there was no allegation that the money was transferred to Pinarayi Vijayan.

“Do you know what they are trying to do..They said the money could be either for Vijayan or it could be for Riyaz. And interestingly the train stops at Veena. It doesn't go beyond Veena to Vijayan or to Riyaz….the principle argument is that no offence under PC Act is made out….If no offence is made out the state also loses jurisdiction to order a preliminary enquiry.”

Hariharan further argued that Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita requires prior approval before initiating action against a public servant, including a retired public servant, and covers preliminary enquiries as well. He contended that the registration of an FIR without following the prescribed procedure was contrary to law.

He also questioned the locus of the petitioner, Advocate K.M. Shajahan, to institute the writ petition, arguing that the Single Judge had treated it as a public interest litigation without following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala High Court Rules. He submitted that the petition was politically motivated and that no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act had been made out.

Hariharan argued “This writ petition was politically motivated”

To this, the Bench said “ He is not a politician”

“He himself claims that he was the former additional private secretary to the opposition leader Mr. V.S Achuthananthan..May be of the same party…But interests are political” Hariharan contended

He further argued:

“ What are his credentials? He being a citizen of the country does not give him a right to come in a PIL against one of the highest constitutional authorities of the state on violent allegations.”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Pinarayi Vijayan, argued that the writ petitioner had not impleaded the Serious Fraud Investigation Office or the affected parties, and had arrayed only the ED's Kochi Unit as a respondent. He also contended that the petition, being in the nature of a public interest litigation, ought to have been listed in accordance with the roster applicable to PILs.

Luthra submitted that the Single Judge's judgment suffered from several errors, including an incorrect interpretation of the law governing preliminary enquiries and a failure to consider the mandatory requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. He argued that several findings in the judgment had been set aside by the Supreme Court. He sought an extension of the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court, staying the investigation, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

Advocate General K Jeju Babu, appearing for the State, submitted that the government had decided to conduct a preliminary enquiry, as a measure of abundant caution, upon receiving information from the ED and subsequently constituted a Special Investigation Team. However, the FIR was registered pursuant to the Single Judge's direction. He argued that the Single Judge had effectively assumed the role of an investigating officer by examining the material and directing the registration of the FIR.

When the Division Bench asked whether the State agreed with the Single Judge's decision, the Advocate General clarified that it did not.

Counsel for Advocate K.M. Shajahan, the writ petitioner, argued that the Single Judge had found a cognizable offence and that the direction to register an FIR had already been complied with. He submitted that neither the FIR nor the ECIR had been challenged and opposed the grant of interim relief, contending that the Supreme Court's interim protection was limited in scope and that the Division Bench should decide whether further relief was warranted. He added that the aggrieved parties could have sought a review before the Single Judge if they felt they had not been heard, instead of approaching the Division Bench.

The Division Bench, however, observed that the Supreme Court had granted leave to challenge the Single Judge's order and directed it to consider the matter. “Whatever may be, the Supreme Court asked us to decide…we can't argue against the Supreme Court judgment. What is this?” the Bench remarked while responding to the petitioner's counsel.

After admitting the appeals and granting interim relief, the court posted the matter for final hearing on November 26.

Background

The case stems from the ED's investigation into alleged payments of around ₹1.72 crore made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited to Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company owned by Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter, Veena Vijayan, between 2017 and 2020, allegedly without any corresponding services.

After forwarding material indicating possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act to the Kerala Police, the State Government ordered a preliminary enquiry by the Crime Branch and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

On a petition filed by Advocate K.M Shajahan, a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, on October 9, 2026 directed the registration of an FIR against Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena Vijayan and Mohammed Riyas, holding that a preliminary enquiry was unwarranted in the circumstances. The court also set aside the order constituting the SIT.

The Division Bench subsequently dismissed the pleas filed by the three seeking leave to appeal against the Single Judge's order. Challenging the dismissal, they approached the Supreme Court.

On October 21, 2026, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order dismissing his plea for leave to appeal and permitted him to pursue the appeal before the High Court. It also stayed the investigation in the FIR for a week to enable the petitioners to pursue the appeal and seek interim relief. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of locus to prefer the appeal and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.

For Appellants: Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra, N Hariharan, Advocates Ameen Hassan K, Lisna Sherin T.T, Ummul Fadla T, Abdul Fathah, Rajesh A, Muneer Ahmed, S Shreekumar, Gilbert George Correya, K.K Ravindranath, P Narayanan, Manu V, Thanushree Damodaran, Abhijith M.A and Clarina Christopher P

For Respondents: Attorney General K Jaju Babu, P Sreekumar, ASG, Advocates V Sethunath, Thomas Abraham, Shamans S and Jaishankar V Nair

Tags:    
Case Title :  MOHAMMED RIYAS.PA Vs ADV. K.M.SHAJAHANCase Number :  WA 2182/ 2026