HC not impressed by Vijayan’s plea for urgent hearing

Kerala High Court has rescheduled its hearing for Monday, October 26, to address Pinarayi Vijayan's plea for an expedited hearing in the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case. This decision follows the Supreme Court's October 21 ruling that overturned a previous High Court order denying Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and son-in-law P. A. Mohammed Riyas the right to challenge a first information report (FIR) registration.

The Supreme Court's October 21 decision also temporarily halted further investigation for seven days, granting the appellants the chance to contest the registration of the FIR before the High Court. The Supreme Court's hearing will be presided over by the same bench, consisting of Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John, who previously dismissed applications to appeal the Single Bench ruling on October 21.

Vijayan's legal team had sought a hearing on Friday, but the High Court rejected their request, setting the hearing for Monday with the original bench. The High Court's Single Bench, headed by Justice A. Badharudeen, initially ordered the FIR registration on October 9 after reviewing evidence submitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding suspected offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The VACB registered the case on October 12, naming Vijayan, Veena, Riyas, and others, following the High Court's refusal to conduct a preliminary inquiry instead of immediately launching criminal proceedings. Vijayan's counsel argued that the High Court had issued directions affecting their legal interests without granting them an opportunity to present their position.

The Supreme Court agreed to provide the appellants the chance to contest the judicial direction requiring the FIR registration. The Supreme Court did not, however, decide whether the allegations warranted criminal proceedings or whether the appellants required additional interim protection. Instead, the court left the question of appropriate interim relief to the High Court, which must evaluate the opposing arguments in accordance with applicable law.

The distinction between the FIR registration and the subsequent assessment of evidence concerning the alleged financial transactions is crucial, as the former initiates the criminal investigation process but does not prove the allegations against those named. The ED is independently investigating potential money-laundering offenses related to the transactions, a process separate from the VACB's corruption investigation.