The Supreme Court has temporarily halted a corruption probe against Pinarayi Vijayan and others in the CMRL-Exalogic case.
What Did the Supreme Court Tell the ED?
A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana cautioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against interfering with the statutory responsibilities of other investigative agencies while hearing petitions filed by former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other accused persons.
The court clarified that the ED could continue investigating suspected money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, information shared with state authorities did not automatically give the agency control over investigations governed by separate laws. Justice Bagchi emphasised that the ED must operate within its statutory limits and allow other agencies to exercise their powers independently.
FCRF’s Chief AI Officer Certification Returns on November 14 to Prepare Future AI Leaders
Why Is the CMRL-Exalogic Case Under Investigation?
The dispute concerns alleged payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) to Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by Vijayan’s daughter, Veena T. During its investigation, the ED shared information with Kerala Police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, alleging that the material indicated possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
On October 9, a Kerala High Court single judge directed the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and other suspected persons. The judge also set aside the state’s earlier decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team for a preliminary inquiry.
Can ED Information Automatically Trigger an FIR?
The Supreme Court questioned whether information supplied under Section 66(2) of the PMLA necessarily required state police to register an FIR or whether authorities could independently assess the allegations before proceeding.
Justice Bagchi observed that the High Court order appeared inconsistent because it treated FIR registration as mandatory while also acknowledging the need for verification. The bench additionally raised questions about prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, argued that the information disclosed a cognizable offence requiring registration of an FIR. The court maintained that the state’s statutory responsibilities needed separate consideration.
What Happens to the Investigation Now?
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court Division Bench’s October 15 refusal to grant the accused permission to appeal against the single judge’s order. It directed the Division Bench to consider their appeal and provided seven days of interim protection against investigation, allowing the accused to pursue that remedy.
The court did not prohibit the ED from continuing its PMLA investigation or pursuing prosecution where legally justified.
The420 Insight: The proceedings highlight the distinction between investigating suspected money laundering and determining whether separate corruption allegations require police action. The Supreme Court’s observations underline the need for investigative agencies to respect their respective statutory powers while ensuring that allegations are examined through the appropriate legal process.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
