On April 3, 2025, when the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) received sanction to prosecute Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter, Veena T., in an alleged corporate fraud case under Section 447 of the Companies Act—a scheduled offence under the PMLA—the entire CPI(M) leadership was in Madurai, attending the party’s 24th Congress.
Veena and her firm, Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, have been accused of receiving ₹2.7 crore in allegedly illegal payments from the mining company CMRL, owned by Sasidharan Kartha. As news of the development broke during the party congress, senior CPI(M) leaders found themselves having to defend Vijayan. Echoing the position taken by several Kerala leaders, former general secretary Prakash Karat said the party would address the issue both politically and legally.
However, there were reports of differences within the Politburo itself over how to tackle the issue. In fact, Bengal state secretary and Politburo member Md Salim said at a press conference that the decision on whether to pursue legal action rested with the “concerned party”—in other words, Veena herself.
On Wednesday (May 27), as the Enforcement Directorate raided premises linked to CMRL and its subsidiaries, as well as the residences of Veena and Pinarayi Vijayan, the party leadership closed ranks in defence of the former chief minister, portraying the action as an attack on the party itself.
The ED maintains that its investigation so far has shown that “proceeds of crime” were generated by the management of CMRL, led by Kartha and Veena, and that the searches were conducted to collect evidence related to money laundering.
According to the ED, intelligence gathered during the investigation indicated that Veena was residing with her father, Pinarayi Vijayan, and therefore, the premises where she was staying were included in the searches. “When the search team reached the premises where she was residing, her father [Vijayan] was also present,” the ED said in a note issued after the raids—suggesting that, as of now, the case does not directly involve the former chief minister and that the ED’s action was focused on Veena.
Nevertheless, as the raids began, the CPI(M) state secretariat convened an emergency meeting and later issued a statement alleging that the raid at Vijayan’s residence was part of a political vendetta. The statement said the party “strongly protests the political witch-hunt being carried out by the Enforcement Directorate against CPI(M) Politburo member and Leader of the Opposition, Pinarayi Vijayan.”
The party has called for statewide protests by its cadres at all levels and has also urged Left Democratic Front (LDF) allies to join the agitation. Notably, an emotionally charged crowd of CPI(M) workers allegedly confronted and attacked ED officials as they were leaving Vijayan’s rented residence after the raids.
Interestingly, there are clear signs that the CPI(M) is strategically using the episode at multiple levels. A key strategy appears to involve directing public anger over the raids primarily against the Congress—the CPI(M)’s principal political rival in Kerala—and its leaders, Rahul Gandhi and Kerala Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan, even though the ED is a central agency under the BJP-led Union government.
Following the raids, Vijayan said that the Enforcement Directorate’s actions would probably give “great satisfaction” to certain people, such as Rahul Gandhi.
“The ED has wanted to conduct searches inside the house for quite some time. It appears that this gives great satisfaction to certain people, especially someone like Rahul Gandhi. Because Rahul Gandhi had asked why Pinarayi Vijayan’s house was not being raided or why he was not being arrested,” he said, while also framing the episode as part of the BJP’s calculated attacks against the opposition and its leaders.
“The Congress position is that the ED can continue targeting parties other than their own. None of this is going to finish us off. We see this only as a beginning. Nobody should imagine that actions of this kind can weaken or break us,” Vijayan said.
The party state secretariat also adopted a similar line, alleging that the raids were part of an attempt to politically target the former chief minister. “It should also be noted that these actions came immediately after CM V. D. Satheesan met the prime minister and union ministers. Similar attacks were carried out in Delhi against Arvind Kejriwal by the BJP and central agencies with Congress support,” the state secretariat said. Incidentally, CPI(M) cadres raised anti-“ED-Modi-VD” slogans in large numbers.
Kerala’s home minister Ramesh Chennithala refuted these allegations and said that not even the home department or police in the state had any idea of the raids. He also dismissed allegations that there was a planned connection between Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan’s visit to Delhi and the subsequent ED raids. “Meeting the prime minister after assuming office as chief minister was an administrative necessity,” said the home minister. Chennithala mocked the CPI(M)’s allegation that the BJP and Congress were jointly targeting anti-BJP leaders, saying such propaganda was an overreach.
Meanwhile, state secretary M. V. Govindan alleged that CMRL itself had stated that two persons who are currently members of the state cabinet received money from the company and had admitted to receiving it. Yet, he claimed, no action had been taken against them.
Notably, the allegation stems from the discovery of the initials of certain Kerala political leaders in a diary allegedly maintained by Sasidharan Kartha. Interestingly, the initials “PV” also appear among them.
There are also indications that the party is using this episode to energise cadres whose morale has been low after the party’s massive defeat in the parliamentary polls.
However, observer K.C. Umesh Babu says what he witnessed was essentially a panic reaction from the CPI(M) leadership. “Today, I closely observed the scenes in Kannur and Kozhikode during the raids. In Kannur, the raid took place at what used to be Pinarayi’s own house. The people who arrived first were all leaders. Senior leaders came there right from the beginning to stage protests beyond the barricades. Only by around noon did they manage, with considerable effort, to bring in ordinary cadres.
“Earlier, whenever anything happened against CPI(M) leaders, party workers and supporters would react spontaneously. That did not happen this time,” he says.
The CPI(M) is currently undertaking a rectification drive, in which party cadres and leaders at various levels are being encouraged to speak “freely and independently” about the issues faced by the party. So far, criticism of Pinarayi Vijayan and the state leadership has reportedly emerged in several district-level discussions.
That raises the question of whether this episode could alter the course of the party’s “course correction” exercise itself.
Political observer Adv. A. Jayashankar says the issue has surfaced at a time when Pinarayi Vijayan’s image has weakened even within the party. “This episode can now go in two directions, depending on the course of action the party chooses,” he says.
Jayashankar argues that the party has so far failed to provide a convincing or coherent explanation to its cadres regarding the alleged illicit payments episode.
“In such a situation, one line of thinking could be that this man has become tainted and should step aside—though he may still be sent off with sympathy and respect,” he says. “Or the party could turn him into a heroic martyr, saying, ‘We will protect this brave comrade fighting for truth, justice, and righteousness,’ rally its cadres around him, and attempt a political comeback for comrade Vijayan. By speaking about the ‘goondaism of central agencies,’ they can stage a display of outrage and political defiance.”
So far, the party appears to be moving in the second direction. Jayashankar, however, notes that broader public perception is against such moves and that attempts to mobilise cadres around this issue could further damage the party’s image.
Umesh Babu, meanwhile, adds that until there is clarity on what evidence the ED has actually gathered from different locations—especially from premises linked to CMRL—one cannot arrive at any firm conclusion about how the case will develop further.
“If the ED has recovered solid evidence from Kartha’s premises, then CPI(M) could face serious trouble,” he says.
“Right now, even CPI(M) cadres are discussing in party committees how Pinarayi’s arrogance and authoritarian style led to electoral setbacks. But if tomorrow the ED comes out with very strong evidence in this case, won’t the narrative shift for even worse? That is why I think we need to wait before reaching conclusions.”