KOCHI: Kerala leader of opposition and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T, and son-in-law and former minister P A Mohammed Riyas on Monday filed appeals before the Kerala High Court seeking to quash a single judge’s order directing the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR against them in the CMRL pay-off case.
The petitioners argued that the single judge passed the order without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena and Riyas filed separate petitions seeking leave to appeal against the single judge’s order.
The petitions were scheduled to be heard at 1.45 pm on Monday.
The single judge had directed the registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against them and others, based on information forwarded by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The petitioners contended that they were not parties to the writ petition and had not been heard, even though the direction directly affected them. They argued that the court could not have issued such an order without hearing the affected parties, especially when it carried serious consequences.
The judgment, they said, had been rendered without impleading or hearing those against whom the direction to register an FIR operated, contrary to Supreme Court judgments.
The petitions further stated that a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR was permissible in corruption cases. The ED functions under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, and cannot dictate when or how the state police should register an FIR, they argued.
No provision of the Constitution, they contended, empowered the Union government to issue such a directive through its agency. The ED’s action, they said, violated the federal structure.
The petitioners also challenged the single judge’s finding that the materials provided by the ED to the state agency contained sufficient prima facie material to disclose the commission of cognisable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by the persons named in the ED’s communication. They contended that this finding was erroneous.