Pinarayi Vijayan Supreme Court: Seeks Relief in CMRL Exalogic FIR Case

• Former Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil, and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas have petitioned the Supreme Court.
• They are challenging a Kerala High Court order that directed the registration of an FIR against them in the CMRL-Exalogic case.
• Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra urgently requested interim protection for Pinarayi Vijayan, citing the already registered FIR and concerns for his liberty.
• CJI Surya Kant stated the Supreme Court would try to form a vacation Bench to hear the matter, otherwise it will be listed for October 26.
• The case involves alleged financial irregularities between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions.

The request for interim protection Pinarayi Vijayan sought was presented as a measure to avert an imminent threat to personal liberty, necessitating prompt judicial intervention.

Former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, along with his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas, has approached the Supreme Court seeking relief in the ongoing CMRL-Exalogic case. Their petition challenges a directive issued by the Kerala High Court, which mandated the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against them concerning alleged financial irregularities. This significant legal move, officially titled Pinarayi Vijayan v Adv KM Shajahan & ors, brings the high-profile matter before the nation's apex court.

The appeal filed by Pinarayi Vijayan was brought to the attention of a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The urgency of the matter was highlighted by the petitioners' legal team, who sought immediate consideration from the court. This development marks a critical juncture in the legal proceedings surrounding the CMRL-Exalogic financial transactions.

During the Supreme Court's initial hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Pinarayi Vijayan, made an impassioned plea for urgent interim protection for his client. Luthra emphasized that the threat of arrest was immediate, given that the FIR had already been registered as per the High Court's order. He underscored the critical nature of the situation, stating that it was a fundamental matter of liberty for an 81-year-old individual, implying that without protection, Mr. Vijayan could face custody.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant addressed the plea for urgency, indicating that the Supreme Court would explore the possibility of constituting a special Bench to hear the matter during the ongoing court vacation. This decision is contingent upon the availability of judges during this period. The CJI clarified that if a suitable Bench could be formed, the case would be listed for hearing during the vacation itself, acknowledging the gravity of the request for interim relief.

However, the Chief Justice also provided an alternative timeline, stating that if a vacation Bench could not be assembled, the matter would then be scheduled for a regular hearing on October 26. This response outlines the procedural steps the Supreme Court intends to take, balancing the urgency of the petitioners' request with the practicalities of judicial availability, particularly concerning the challenge to the Kerala High Court FIR order.

The core of the legal dispute revolves around alleged irregularities concerning financial dealings between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct firm linked to Veena Thaikkandiyil. The case, which has drawn significant public and political attention, centers on accusations of improper transactions that led to the Kerala High Court's directive for an FIR to be registered against the prominent political figures.

The Supreme Court petition by Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter, and son-in-law seeks to overturn this High Court order, contending that the registration of an FIR is unwarranted. The outcome of this challenge will have significant implications for the individuals involved and could set precedents for how similar high-profile cases involving political figures and their families are handled in the future.

Lawyers advising high-profile clients facing criminal investigations should note the Supreme Court's consideration of urgent interim protection against FIR registration, even during vacation. This case illustrates the procedural avenues for challenging High Court directives for FIRs and seeking relief based on liberty concerns.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench