Kerala HC order against former CM Pinarayi Vijayan and others raises a larger question of natural justice, say legal experts
Pinarayi, Riyas and Veena denied an opportunity to be heard, which can be construed as denial of natural justice and could be challenged in the High Court or the Supreme Court, they say. Some also say that single judge’s order bypasses a law that mandates approval from the competent authority to conduct inquiry into public servants
The Kerala High Court has directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to file a First Information Report (FIR) against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and son-in-law and MLA P.A. Mohamed Riyas. This decision has sparked debate about natural justice and the disregard of statutory provisions, according to legal experts.
Although the single judge thoroughly heard the petitioner K.M. Shajahan and the Enforcement Directorate, the trio were not given a chance to present their case. This could be seen as a violation of natural justice, potentially allowing Vijayan and the others to challenge the order in higher courts. The single judge's ruling seems to have bypassed Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior approval from the competent authority for police officers to investigate offenses committed by public servants in the course of their duties.
This safeguard was introduced in 2018 to protect government employees from unnecessary litigation that could discourage them from serving their posts with honesty and integrity. The validity of the single judge's action in disregarding statutory requirements that mandate prior approval for such cases is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court, as the previous judges reached conflicting conclusions.
The State government, represented by Advocate General K. Jaju Babu, argued that the competent authority should have the option to register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry upon receiving information from the ED. However, the State is unlikely to appeal the decision, as it has limited legal options following the order. Consequently, the Vigilance will be required to file an FIR against Vijayan and Riyas under the act's provisions.
The ED will utilize the FIR and corruption allegations as a predicate offense to investigate potential money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Ms. Veena, who is not a public servant, will not be subject to the Act's provisions. The outcome of the case against Ms. Veena will hinge on the resolution of the petition filed by CMRL before the Delhi High Court, challenging the SFIO investigation into a corporate fraud involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a firm owned by her.
Written by urgent.news from The Hindu's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
