CMRL bribery case: Why SC stayed probe against Pinarayi Vijayan, others for 7 days

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a Kerala High Court Division Bench order denying the petitioners leave to appeal against a single judge’s direction for an investigation in a corruption case linked to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. Granting them an opportunity to challenge the direction, the top court stayed the investigation in the first information report (FIR) for seven days to enable them to seek interim relief from the High Court.

The order does not quash the FIR or bring the investigation to a permanent halt in the alleged CMRL bribery case. The petitioners are free to pursue their appeal before the High Court Division Bench, which will independently decide the challenge and any request for interim protection. The Supreme Court has also made it clear that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations or the validity of any subsequent Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).

The court was hearing a plea by Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil and her husband Mohammed Riyas challenging the Kerala High Court order directing registration of a first information report (FIR) against them.

At the centre of the dispute is a communication from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which provides for sharing information with other agencies in specified circumstances. The communication was followed by a single judge’s direction for an investigation, which the petitioners sought to challenge before the High Court Division Bench.

In its observations, the Supreme Court emphasised that an ED communication under Section 66(2) does not automatically require a state agency to register an FIR. The agency receiving the information must apply its mind and act in accordance with the law governing the alleged offence.

“The FIR is registered. That is it. We will allow the FIR to exist, but we will stall the investigation. This is not a court-directed investigation. This is an ED request, or a PMLA request under Section 66(2). The single-judge quotes Charanjit and passes an order. Do your PMLA examination, file your complaint under Section 4. Even if you have got 417, you have got a scheduled offence. Go ahead with your prosecution. Don't extend your hand beyond your statutory limits. We are making it very clear. Don't use the process of statutory powers to meddle into the statutory domain of other entities. Okay? We are fully clear what you have done, what the High Court has done. We will maintain the FIR, but no investigation until and unless these issues are decided by the appellate forum," the court said.

The distinction is important because the sharing of information by a central agency and the initiation of criminal proceedings by a state agency are separate legal steps. The former cannot, by itself, be treated as a direction compelling the latter to register a case without examining the applicable statutory requirements.

The court also cautioned the ED against extending its statutory powers into the domain of other investigative agencies. While the PMLA empowers the ED to share information in the circumstances specified by law, that provision cannot be interpreted as conferring an unrestricted authority over how another agency exercises its legal powers.

“Please understand, we are not against any FIR investigation. It's about giving an opportunity even to somebody. Section 4 says even a person not accused of a scheduled offence can be an offender under PMLA. So, they have their business. ED has full power to investigate hawala dealers, to investigate former chief ministers. Nothing stops him. He has done his statutory duty. He intimated the State. Now it is for the State to act as per law. Whether the State is acting as per law, the High Court, according to us, could not have directed investigation when it relies on Charanjit Lal. This issue needs to be decided, sir. When the complaint from ED came, the State had constituted an SIT to look into the complaint and to file a preliminary investigation report. Without waiting for that, within one day, you filed a writ petition, independent of that. You can say that you are not aware of it, so your writ was independent. But what was the... Therefore, your prayer was, within one day, within one day of the constitution of the committee, you wanted the FIR to be registered," a bench of Justice Joymala Bagchi and V. Mohana said.

The Supreme Court further highlighted the distinction between the registration of an FIR and the conduct of an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both stages must conform to the applicable legal framework, including the safeguards prescribed by statute. The observations underline that criminal proceedings must follow the law rather than flow automatically from the transmission of information by another agency.

The ruling also addresses the right of parties affected by judicial directions to challenge them before an appropriate appellate forum. By setting aside the Division Bench order denying leave to appeal, the Supreme Court has restored the petitioners’ opportunity to contest the Single Judge’s direction and seek interim relief.

The seven-day protection is intended to facilitate that process. It gives the petitioners a limited window to approach the High Court, without extinguishing the FIR or determining whether the investigation can ultimately proceed. The Division Bench remains free to assess the challenge on its merits and pass appropriate orders.