Kerala High Court Stays FIR and Probe Against Former Chief Minister
A division bench provided interim relief to former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his family in the ongoing bribery case.
The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed a single-judge order that had directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his relatives in connection with the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) bribery case. This decision provides significant interim relief to the petitioners.
A Division Bench consisting of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John also kept in abeyance the FIRs previously registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB). Furthermore, the court ordered that all further investigations in the matter remain suspended until further instructions are issued.
The bench formally admitted the appeals filed by Vijayan and other family members, noting that the complex legal questions involved require detailed consideration. The court scheduled the upcoming hearings for four weeks from now, following directives from the Supreme Court that the appeals warranted a thorough examination.
The legal challenge centers on a single-judge order that mandated an FIR regarding allegations involving Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, and his son-in-law, MLA P A Muhammed Riyas. Previously, another division bench had rejected pleas seeking permission to appeal, prompting the petitioners to turn to the Supreme Court, which ultimately cleared the path for the current high court review.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Hariharan, representing Vijayan, argued that the initial single-judge order was issued without giving the former chief minister and other affected parties a proper opportunity to be heard. He asserted that the directive to register an FIR amounted to an overreach of judicial jurisdiction, arguing that such investigatory decisions belong strictly within the executive domain.
The petitioners also challenged the procedural integrity of the case, contending it was inappropriately brought forward as a public interest litigation (PIL) without adhering to the standard protocols required for such filings. They additionally alleged that an outside individual with political motivations had improperly intervened in the state government's decision regarding a preliminary inquiry.