High Court nod to proceed the vigilance cases against Pinarayi Vijayan and family, big setback to CPM

October 19, 2026 admin

Introductory Memo: Based on a High Court directive, the Kerala Vigilance has registered a case against 12 individuals—including former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan as the prime accused in a corruption case, his son-in-law Mohammed Riyas as the prime accused in a hawala case, and his daughter Veena—over the CMRL-Exalogic financial transactions involving alleged monthly payoffs and illegal money transfers. This legal development, which also implicates several other prominent political leaders from various parties based on seized diary notes and ED findings, has severely impacted the political standing of the CPI(M) and the LDF, even as the accused have approached the High Court’s division bench seeking a stay on the investigation.

Analytical view/ Analysis: First time in the history of Kerala ,a former Chief Minister and family are charged on corruption and hawala case. Pinarayi Vijayan ,daughter Veena .T and Soninlaw and former minister Mohamad Riyas are chargedin two cases registered by vigilance.

The Vigilance case registering former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan as the prime accused in the CMRL-Exalogic financial transaction case has severely impacted the political image of the CPI(M) and the Left Democratic Front (LDF). Out of the two cases, Pinarayi is the prime accused in one, while Mohammed Riyas is the prime accused in the second. Pinarayi has been named as the prime accused in a corruption case, while Riyas is the prime accused in a hawala case. The investigation will be conducted by a special team formed under the Thiruvananthapuram Special Investigation Unit of the Vigilance. The appeals filed by the accused were declined by the High Court division bench and told that there is no cause to intervene in the proceedings.

The Vigilance registered the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on a High Court order. Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan and Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala had earlier stated that the law would take its course and a case would be registered as directed by the High Court. The state government had rejected the CPI(M)’s demand to appeal against the High Court ruling. The Crime Branch had earlier initiated a preliminary inquiry based on a letter sent by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the DGP demanding that cases be registered for bribery and hawala transactions against Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena, and son-in-law and former minister Mohammed Riyas, among others. However, the High Court clarified that the Enforcement Directorate’s report should be considered as a preliminary inquiry and that a fresh preliminary inquiry was not required. The single bench of the High Court had ordered the registration of a case and an investigation.

The High Court had earlier set aside the DGP’s order forming a special investigation team for a preliminary inquiry. The High Court order reached the Vigilance by Friday. Following the receipt of legal advice as well, the Vigilance registered the case. Meanwhile, Pinarayi Vijayan and others approached the High Court, citing that the ruling was issued without hearing their side. They have requested that the investigation be stayed until the division bench delivers its judgment. A total of 12 people, including Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena, son-in-law and former minister Mohamad Riyas, and KMRL MD Shashidharan Kartha,and higher officials have been named as accused. The investigation has been entrusted to a special Vigilance team with jurisdiction across Kerala. Since the CMRL transactions took place in Kochi, officials from Kochi have also been included in the Vigilance investigation team. With the registration of FIRs in hawala and black money cases, the Directorate will also initiate its investigation. Although DGP Ravada Chandrasekhar had recommended a Vigilance probe into the case, the state government had initially handed over the preliminary inquiry to the Crime Branch.

The names of those who allegedly received monthly payoffs (massappadi), as found in Sasidharan Kartha’s diary, are not limited to the Left Front. Legal circles point out that since Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala, Industries Minister Kunjalikutty, and other prominent leaders are also included in the list, there is a possibility that cases could be registered and investigated against others as well. This is precisely why the state government hedged and dodged on the matter. Following the Lavalin case, this second serious case involving a senior-most leader of the CPI(M) has dealt a significant blow to the party’s political image. Furthermore, CMRL’s remark that payments were made in the Chief Minister’s name without any services rendered, and the fact that the Chief Minister’s family got embroiled in this controversy, has created a situation where it is impossible to defend. The CPI’s firm stance—declaring in a press conference that it would not interfere in the case—came as a severe setback to Pinarayi. Other constituent parties including CPI also remained silent on the issue.

The Enforcement Directorate had pointed out that aides gave statements revealing that crores of rupees were funnelled to Dubai through hawala channels at the behest of Mohammed Riyas. The Enforcement has handed over records including diary notes and WhatsApp chats indicating that over 20.5 crore rupees were transferred this way. These documents are primarily what trapped Riyas. Meanwhile, the High Court dismissed the state government’s contention that the Enforcement cannot be viewed as a preliminary investigative agency. The court stated that as an agency investigating money laundering cases, passing on information regarding corruption to the state government was entirely legal. The court cited rulings such as the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, which established that a preliminary inquiry is not necessary once evidence is available.

The state government’s stance against K.M. Shajahan was also rejected by the court. The judges dismissed the government’s arguments that a petitioner unrelated to the case has no locus standi to file such a petition, and that the petitioner was previously subjected to contempt of court proceedings for remarks against judges. The single bench pointed out that the petitioner is an activist working against corruption and approached the court only after receiving no action on two separate representations demanding that a case be registered directly. Legal experts evaluate that the single bench verdict impacts not only Pinarayi Vijayan, his family, and the CPI(M), but also the state government, V.D. Satheesan, Ramesh Chennithala, and Kunjalikutty.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply