Kerala Assembly LoP Pinarayi Vijayan. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
The Kerala High Court order asking the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and his son-in-law and MLA P.A. Mohamed Riyas, has raised larger questions of natural justice and court orders overlooking the statutory provisions of law, according to legal experts.
Though the single judge elaborately heard the petitioner K.M. Shajahan and the Enforcement Directorate, which forwarded a letter to the State government seeking to register an FIR against the trio, the three were not offered an opportunity to be heard. The denial of the opportunity to be heard could be construed as the denial of natural justice. It will legally enable Mr. Vijayan and the two others to challenge the single judge’s order before the High Court or Supreme Court, judicial sources pointed out.
The order of the single judge, according to some legal experts, bypassed Section 17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandated prior approval from the competent authority for police officers to conduct inquiry into offences committed by public servants in the discharge of their official functions.
As a safeguard
The Section was introduced through an amendment in 2018 as a safeguard for government servants against unnecessary litigation, which could deter them from discharging their duties in an honest and fair manner. The question whether a court can overlook the statutory provisions of law that mandate prior approval for booking the case is pending before the Supreme Court. The matter was left for the consideration of a larger Bench of the court as the judges who heard the challenge came out with opposing judgments. Hence, the legality of the single judge’s action in ordering the registration of the FIR too could be challenged before the appropriate forum, sources indicated.
The State government, represented by Advocate General K. Jaju Babu, had contended that the competent authority should have an option to register an FIR or conduct a preliminary inquiry on receiving information from the ED. The State, which is left with limited legal options following the order, is unlikely to go on appeal.
The State could have played a crucial role in deciding the fate of the case had its prior sanction been sought under Section 17 (A) of the Act to prosecute the three. The legal responsibility of challenging the decision is left with Mr. Vijayan and the two others, legal sources indicated.
Does not apply to Veena
Meanwhile, the Vigilance will have to book an FIR against Mr. Vijayan and Mr. Riyas under the provisions of the Act. The ED would make use of the FIR and the allegations of corruption as a predicate offence to book Mr. Vijayan and Ms. Riyas for money laundering under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Act will not apply to Ms. Veena who is not a public servant. However, the ED had proceeded against her based on the criminal complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in relation to the alleged corporate fraud committed in Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the firm owned by her.
Incidentally, the fate of the case against Ms. Veena would depend upon the outcome of the petition filed by CMRL before the Delhi High Court challenging the SFIO investigation.
Published – October 10, 2026 06:30 am IST
