Don't meddle with other probe agencies: Supreme Court warns ED in CMRL case against Pinarayi Vijayan

The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) not to meddle with how other investigating agencies may choose to operate.

A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing petitions filed by CPI(M) leader and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil, and her husband Mohammed Riyas.

They had challenged a Kerala High Court order directing the registration of an FIR in the CMRL-Exalogic case, based on information shared by the ED.

Notably, the Congress-led Kerala government had initially decided to hold a preliminary inquiry in the matter instead of registering an FIR. After an activist-lawyer named KM Shajahan challenged this move, the Kerala High Court recently ordered the registration of an FIR.

The ED, pertinently, had supported Shajahan's contention that the State Police ought to have registered an FIR based on its information.

The Supreme Court today said that it was inclined to stay the investigation. In doing so, it also warned the ED not to breach the limits imposed on it by the law, or meddle with the affairs of other investigation agencies.

"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," Justice Bagchi said.

The Court said that while the ED has every power to investigate the allegations involved in the case, it cannot dictate what the State police should do thereafter in the matter.

"(ED) has full power to investigate hawala dealers, to investigate former Chief Ministers. Nothing stops (them). He (ED) 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... 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, (a writ petition was filed by Shajahan for the registration of FIR)," Justice Bagchi said.

The Bench also noted that the High Court order directing the registration of an FIR was passed without hearing Vijayan and others who were named accused in the case.

"What was the great urgency, without even including a party to be heard, that this order had to be passed?" asked Justice Mohana.

The Court proceeded to stay the investigation in the FIR registered by the Kerala Police for a week. The matter has been remanded back to the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) for a final decision on the validity of the FIR.

The matter is tied to alleged irregularities in the financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company owned by Veena Thaikkandiyil.

The ED claimed that it unearthed certain incriminating material, which it shared with the Kerala Police. The State decided to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to hold a preliminary inquiry instead of immediately registering an FIR.

A lawyer named KM Shajahan approached the Kerala High Court with a plea for the registration of an FIR, which was allowed by a single-judge Bench of the High Court on October 9.

This was challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court by way of appeals filed by Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and others.

Notably, the appellants (Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and others) were not parties to the writ petition in which the single-judge's October 9 order was passed. Therefore, a question arose as to whether they can be given permission to challenge a judgment in a case to which they were not parties.

The High Court's Division Bench refused to permit the appellants to proceed with their appeal. It held that the appellants can still challenge the FIR itself, instead of the single-judge order for the registration of the FIR.

The Supreme Court has now set aside this Division Bench ruling and sent the matter back to the High Court.

Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and N Hariharan and advocates Mayank Jain, Gilbert George Correya, Madhur Jain and Arpit Goel represented the petitioners.

Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain represented the ED.

[Live Coverage]