Krishnadas accuses UDF of shielding Pinarayi in corruption cases

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national executive member P. K. Krishnadas on Thursday accused Kerala’s Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government of collaborating with the CPI(M) to protect former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan from prosecution in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff and alleged hawala cases.

Krishnadas alleged that the Supreme Court’s intervention in the corruption proceedings had exposed an understanding between the Congress and the CPI(M), despite their public political rivalry. He maintained that the government’s handling of the allegations demonstrated a reluctance to pursue criminal proceedings against the former Chief Minister.

The BJP leader’s allegations followed Wednesday’s Supreme Court order permitting Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law P. A. Mohamed Riyas to challenge a Kerala High Court direction requiring the registration of corruption cases against them.

The Supreme Court also temporarily suspended the vigilance investigation to enable the petitioners to approach a High Court Division Bench. Although the court initially announced a seven-day suspension, its subsequently published order specified ten days.

Krishnadas argued that the government’s decision to initiate a preliminary inquiry, rather than immediately register a criminal case following information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), had effectively benefited Vijayan and his family.

The allegation of political cooperation remains contested. Neither the Supreme Court’s order nor the available judicial findings establish an agreement between the Congress and the CPI(M) to obstruct the investigation.

Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala rejected suggestions that the government’s approach was intended to protect the former Chief Minister. He maintained that the Supreme Court’s observations vindicated the administration’s decision to examine the ED’s communication before proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Chennithala emphasised that the Supreme Court had not cancelled the first information reports registered against Vijayan and others. The investigation remained legally pending, although further proceedings were temporarily prohibited.

CPI(M) State secretary M. V. Govindan also welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, describing the allegations against Vijayan and other party leaders as politically motivated. He maintained that the party would contest the proceedings through legal and political channels.

The contrasting explanations offered by the Congress and CPI(M) leadership formed the basis of Krishnadas’s criticism. While both parties welcomed aspects of the judicial intervention, they advanced different arguments concerning the legitimacy of the investigation.

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana set aside an October 15 High Court Division Bench decision refusing the petitioners permission to appeal against an October 9 single-judge order.

The single judge had directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register criminal cases following information forwarded by the ED concerning alleged financial transactions involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions.

The Supreme Court clarified that its intervention concerned the petitioners’ entitlement to pursue an appeal and did not constitute a determination of the corruption allegations.

The Bench also cautioned the ED against interfering with the statutory responsibilities of other investigating agencies. It indicated that information supplied by the central agency must be handled according to the legal requirements governing the state police.

The underlying allegations concern payments allegedly made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, a company owned by Veena, purportedly without corresponding services being provided.

The ED has alleged that payments worth approximately ₹2.78 crore were made under the guise of consultancy and related services. The allegations remain unproven and are subject to judicial scrutiny.

Separate allegations concerning suspected hawala transactions have also figured in the investigation. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau registered two first information reports following the High Court’s direction.

Congress legislator Mathew Kuzhalnadan, who has pursued allegations concerning the transactions, characterised the Supreme Court’s intervention as procedural rather than a decision on the substantive accusations.

His position highlighted differences within the Congress over the government’s handling of the proceedings, particularly its initial preference for a preliminary investigation.

The ED had separately summoned Vijayan for questioning at its Kochi office on October 23 under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The summons sought documents and information connected with the financial investigation.

Vijayan’s legal representatives had indicated that his participation in the ongoing Assembly session could prevent his appearance before the agency on the specified date.

The Assembly session is scheduled to continue until October 29, while the High Court proceedings concerning the registration of the corruption cases remain unresolved.