Senior ED officials began consultations in Kochi on Wednesday to examine their legal options following the Supreme Court’s decision to permit Vijayan and his family members to challenge the High Court order. No formal decision on opposing the appeal has been publicly confirmed.
The Supreme Court on October 21 stayed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) investigation for seven days while allowing Vijayan, his daughter T Veena and son-in-law P A Mohammed Riyas to pursue their appeals before the High Court.
A vacation Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana set aside the High Court Division Bench’s October 15 decision refusing the petitioners permission to appeal against a single judge’s direction to register first information reports.
The apex court clarified that the existing FIRs would remain valid during the temporary suspension of investigation. It also left the question of further interim protection to the High Court, which must consider the appeals independently.
The ruling has created a fresh legal challenge for the ED, whose findings formed the basis of the corruption proceedings initiated by the VACB. The central agency must now determine how to defend its information-sharing exercise and the resulting registration of criminal cases.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the Supreme Court cautioned the ED against exceeding its statutory jurisdiction or interfering with responsibilities assigned to other investigative agencies. The observations concerned the boundaries of its powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Bench nevertheless made clear that its intervention did not constitute a finding on the substance of the corruption allegations. Its immediate concern was whether the petitioners had been improperly denied access to an appellate remedy.
The controversy originated from information supplied by the ED to Keralam police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The agency maintained that material gathered during its investigation disclosed suspected offences warranting action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Congress-led State government initially chose to order a preliminary investigation through a special investigation team rather than immediately register criminal cases. That decision was challenged before the High Court by K M Shajahan, a former additional private secretary to former Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan.
Justice A Badharudeen, hearing the petition, directed the VACB on October 9 to register FIRs and rejected the government’s decision to proceed through a preliminary inquiry without first registering a case.
The VACB subsequently registered two FIRs on October 12 against Vijayan and others. The ED separately initiated money-laundering proceedings arising from its examination of the alleged financial transactions.
Vijayan and the other petitioners challenged the single judge’s order, arguing that they had not been heard before the direction was issued. They also questioned the procedure followed in entertaining the petition seeking criminal proceedings.
The High Court Division Bench initially refused permission to appeal, prompting the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court. Wednesday’s intervention restored their opportunity to contest the original direction without determining whether the FIRs should ultimately survive.
The underlying allegations concern payments allegedly made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, a company associated with Veena, during Vijayan’s tenure as Chief Minister.
Investigators suspect that consultancy arrangements were used to transfer money without corresponding services being provided. The precise financial amounts cited in different proceedings and accounts have varied, making the supporting records central to the dispute.
Vijayan and his family have denied wrongdoing. The allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial scrutiny, and no determination of criminal liability has been made.
Separately, the ED has summoned Vijayan to appear at its Kochi zonal office on October 23 for questioning in connection with the alleged transactions.
The summons was issued before the Supreme Court granted temporary protection in the vigilance proceedings. The court’s order specifically addressed the VACB investigation, leaving the position of the ED’s separate proceedings to be considered under the applicable legal framework.
The CMRL investigation also involves scrutiny of consultancy payments, company records and financial transactions examined by the central agency under money-laundering legislation.
(The article ‘ED gears up to oppose appeal’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
