FIR against Pinarayi: HC’s order could have multidimensional implications for Kerala politics

The Kerala High Court directed the state police to register FIRs under the Prevention of Corruption Act against former Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and former minister P.A. Mohamed Riyas, acting on a letter from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the Kerala DGP.

Justice A. Badharudeen issued the direction while allowing a petition filed by advocate K.M. Shajahan.

On September 8, the ED sent a 25-page letter to the Kerala police chief under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, seeking a separate corruption FIR against Vijayan, his son-in-law and former tourism minister Riyas, Veena, and several other individuals and entities. The letter alleged that ₹3.28 crore in bribes from controversial firm CMRL, allegedly intended for Vijayan, had been routed through his daughter. It also alleged that Riyas, the sitting MLA from Beypore, had received other bribes unrelated to CMRL payments and used Veena and her associates to transfer funds to Dubai.

Despite the ED’s demand, the UDF government proceeded cautiously. The Advocate General had provided legal advice, in consultation with the DGP, after examining the ED’s letter and the evidence it contained. The advice indicated that a case could be registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Yet the government decided against registering an FIR immediately, citing various Supreme Court judgments.

Instead, the Home Department referred the matter to a Crime Branch special investigation team (SIT) for a preliminary inquiry. In court, the government argued that an ED letter did not make immediate FIR registration mandatory, that Supreme Court judgments permitted a preliminary inquiry, and that the petition was not maintainable.

The ED and the petitioner, however, argued that the communication under Section 66(2) already disclosed a cognisable offence and obviated the need for a preliminary inquiry. The police, they maintained, could not stop at the inquiry stage when the information provided warranted registration of an FIR. The court framed the central question as whether the police must register an FIR upon receiving such a communication or could still conduct a preliminary inquiry. It also asked the ED to produce the letter in a sealed cover.

Setback for the Pinarayi clan

Though technically a setback for the state government, the court’s decision is a major blow to Pinarayi Vijayan, Riyas, and Veena. The development comes as the CPI(M) continues its organisational self-correction exercise, with only three districts yet to complete the process.

The court’s direction for an FIR-based investigation involving the leader of the opposition and former Chief Minister, his daughter, and his son-in-law comes at a politically sensitive juncture. Following the extended state committee meeting, Vijayan had managed to rally the party behind him in portraying the ED’s letter as an attack on the CPI(M). The court’s decision could now put him once again on the defensive.

An FIR by the Kerala Police could give the ED further grounds to widen its investigation into Pinarayi Vijayan and Riyas. This is particularly significant because the allegations against Riyas in the ED’s letter extend beyond the CMRL case. The FIR could provide a predicate offence for the ED to examine the alleged flow of funds, their sources, and the significance of handwritten notes seized from Veena’s residence.

The ED has claimed that the notes record the transfer of ₹85 lakh to Dubai and contain details of accounts totalling ₹20.05 crore. The extent to which these entries establish financial links or substantiate the agency’s allegations will now depend on further investigation. But the ED has a clear opening now.

A double-edged sword for the UDF

The ruling could also prove a double-edged sword for the UDF. The government’s decision not to act immediately on the ED’s letter appeared designed to avoid giving the CPI(M) an opportunity to allege a BJP–Congress deal. By opting for a preliminary inquiry, the government sought to avoid the political fallout of appearing to act directly on the central agency’s allegations. Even though this had given the BJP a chance to allege adjustment politics between the UDF and the LDF, the UDF took that route.

The ruling offers the Congress-led UDF some political cover: the government can now point to the court’s direction as the basis for registering the FIR, blunting the CPI(M)’s allegations of a BJP–Congress understanding. But the government’s next move remains uncertain. It could challenge the order, particularly if it fears that the legal precedent set by the case could have wider implications for Congress leaders in future investigations.

That concern may acquire added significance if the ED’s scrutiny extends to alleged references to UDF leaders, including cabinet ministers, in handwritten records recovered during central agencies' inquiry into CMRL. Whether these entries lead to further action remains to be seen.

Implications for the INDIA bloc

The case could also generate tensions within the INDIA bloc. The opposition bloc has broadly adopted a united position against the ED, accusing the central agency of being used for political purposes. In Kerala, however, the police under a UDF government must now register an FIR against a prominent CPI(M) leader.

The prospect of a Congress-led state government initiating a criminal investigation against Pinarayi Vijayan, the state’s Leader of the Opposition, could strain relations between the two parties, exposing the tensions between their national-level cooperation and their competing political interests in Kerala.