CMRL Case: Why Kerala High Court Rejected Pinarayi Vijayan and Family’s Pleas

The Kerala High Court in the CMRL bribery case dismissed former CM Pinarayi Vijayan and his family members' pleas seeking permission to appeal against the FIR order. Vijayan's family members, in their appeals, claimed that they were not heard by the single judge before the October 9 order was issued.

Post Published By: Sreeja Chowdhury

Updated : 15 October 2026, 3:15 PM IST

Kerala High Court (Img: Pinterest)

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking permission to appeal against a single-judge order directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VCB) to register an FIR in the CMRL (Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited)-Exalogic case involving former two-time Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena Thaikkandiyil, and his son-in-law and Beypore MLA, P A Mohammad Riyas, among others.

Court Says Petitioners Can Challenge FIR

The division bench of Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John held that the single judge's order did not infringe upon the petitioners' rights. It observed that, since an FIR had already been registered, the scope for challenging the order through the present appeals was limited. The court indicated that the petitioners could challenge the FIR itself.

Former CM Vijayan, Veena and her husband, Riyas, had challenged the single-judge order, arguing that the public-interest petition should not have been entertained and that the order was passed without allowing them to be heard. They contended that this violated the principles of natural justice.

The state government supported the petitioners' position, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed granting leave to appeal. The court dismissed the petitions.

What Is the CMRL-Exalogic Case?

The case concerns financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, a company owned by Veena. The allegation is that CMRL made monthly payments to Exalogic despite the company allegedly not providing the corresponding IT services.

The ED had shared information and material gathered during its investigation with the state authorities. The state initially opted for a preliminary inquiry by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), rather than immediately registering an FIR.