The petitioner contended that, instead of registering a vigilance case, the govt ordered a preliminary police inquiry into the materials provided by the ED
Kochi: The high court is set to consider the pertinent legal question of whether the state police have any option other than registering an FIR based on information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The matter was adjourned to Sept 29. The court was considering a petition by Shajahan K M, an activist from Thiruvananthapuram, seeking a directive to the state govt to register a vigilance case against former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his kin, based on information provided by the ED in the CMRL pay-off case, instead of conducting a preliminary police inquiry into the matter. The petitioner contended that, instead of registering a vigilance case, the govt ordered a preliminary police inquiry into the materials provided by the ED. He termed the move ‘match-fixing’ and alleged that it was an attempt to save the culprits.
During the hearing on Saturday, the bench of Justice A Badharudeen directed the ED to submit, in a sealed cover, details of the information handed over to the police for the court’s perusal.
The counsel stated that the ED had informed the state police chief in 2025 regarding materials obtained during its inquiry. It was also submitted that the ED had initially registered a case under the PMLA based on a case registered by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Companies Act. However, no subsequent action was taken then. He further urged the registration of a vigilance case against Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena and his son-in-law P A Mohammed Riyas. Advocate general K Jaju Babu, appearing for the state govt, questioned the petition’s maintainability on the ground that it had been filed as a private petition rather than as a public interest litigation. He also sought a directive to the high court registry to explain why the petition had been treated as a private litigation. Referring to the HC’s decision in the V P Nandakumar case, the AG argued that disclosure by the ED would not exempt the notified authorities from independently evaluating whether the information disclosed an offence. He contended that disclosure by itself would not conclusively establish that the information constituted a statutory offence. The AG also referred to the scope for conducting a preliminary inquiry into information handed over by the agency, as recognised by the apex court in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case.