Now Reading: Kerala High Court orders FIR against ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL case
-
01
Kerala High Court orders FIR against ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL case
Kerala High Court orders FIR against ex-CM Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL case
The Kerala High Court on Friday, 9 October 2026, directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under the Prevention of Corruption Act against former chief minister and current Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case. Justice A Badharudeen allowed a petition filed by advocate K M Shajahan, who argued that the state police must register an FIR instead of conducting a preliminary inquiry into allegations contained in a report submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A detailed order is awaited.
The ED had alleged that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) made fraudulent payments of Rs 2.78 crore to Veena's company, Exalogic Solutions, between 2017 and 2020 under the guise of IT consultancy services. The agency reported the matter to the state police chief on 7 September 2026 and sought registration of an FIR. The UDF-led state government opposed the petition, arguing that an ED report alone was insufficient and that a preliminary inquiry was needed. The next development will be the filing of the FIR by the state police, based on the court's order.
Indian Opinion Analysis
LiveLaw and the Times of India both report the same core event, the High Court ordered FIR registration, and carry identical factual detail from the court proceedings. Where they differ is in the amount of legal context each includes. LiveLaw devotes several paragraphs to the arguments of the Advocate General and ED counsel on whether a preliminary inquiry is required before an FIR, giving the legal nuance behind the court's decision. The Times of India condenses those arguments into a single sentence and foregrounds the political-administrative sequence: the UDF government ordered a police inquiry after the ED letter, and the court overruled that. Neither source adopts a pro-government or critical stance, the difference is one of emphasis. LiveLaw readers get the procedural quarrel, Times of India readers get the government's resistance and the court's rejection of it.
Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): livelaw.in (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
