'Fight Political Battles Before Electorate' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Against Kerala CM Pinarayi Vijayan In CMRL Case

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 6) dismissed a petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan seeking probe against Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena with respect to the alleged Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) scam.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court's judgment which dismissed the revision petitions challenging the Vigilance Court orders refusing to order probes into corruption allegations.

As soon as the matter was taken, CJI BR Gavai told Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, the petitioner's lawyer, "We have been consistently saying, fight your political battles before the electorate and not in the Court."

The senior counsel however argued that the High Court had found that the petitioner's petition was not motivated. "High Court at some stage finds that there is something to be looked at," he submitted. However, Justice Vinod Chandran retorted, "It doesn't."

"What sort of a statement is that?" Justice Chandran asked pointing out to an averment in the petition. "This is why the Chief Justice said, fight your battles in the election," Justice Chandran added. 

Krishna Kumar highlighted that three facts were undeniable - that there was a contract between CMRL and the company of the Chief Minister's daughter; that Rs 1.72 crores was paid to her company; and that in the proceedings before the Income Tax Interim Settlement Board, CMRL admitted that there was no services were rendered by the company of the CM's daughter. "High Court says this creates suspicion but also says that the complaint at the pre-cognizance stage must be such that it must be proven facts," Guru Krishna Kumar said. The senior counsel said that by insisting on "proven facts" at pre-cognizance stage, the High Court committed an error.  

However, the bench expressed its disinclination to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Vigilance Court and the High Court. "Fight your political battles before the electorate. Don't use the Court's forum," CJI repeated.

When the counsel attempted to make further submissions, CJI said in a lighter vein, "We will impose a cost of Rs 10 lakhs."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for CMRL. However, he did not have to make any submissions as the Court dismissed the matter after the petitioner's arguments.

After the matter was dismissed, Justice Chandran said that the petitioner was actively involved in rescue operations during the 2018 Kerala floods. "But you should not bank upon such tragedies; exaggerations often put a spanner in your works," Justice Chandran added.

Kuzhalnadan had alleged that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) paid Rs. 5 Lakh per month to Veena Thaikkandiyil and Rs. 3 lakhs per month to her company Exalogic Solutions under the fake head of obtaining IT and Marketing Consultancy Services, when rather it was gratification to obtain favourable decisions from the Chief Minister.

He had approached the High Court in revision, after the Vigilance Court refused order probe in the matter.

In his 59-page judgment, Justice K. Babu observed that Kuzhalnadan could not place any 'facts' constituting the offence and had leveled the allegations based on mere suspicions.

“… the complainant could only place certain materials highlighting 'suspicions' based on the allegations in the complaint and 'not facts' constituting the offences alleged,” the High Court held.

The Kerala High Court observed that unnecessary corruption investigation into a public servant may cause a blemish on is career or reputation.

"An unnecessary investigation or an enquiry into an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant based on such suspicions may cause a blemish on his career or reputation. Being called to appear before a criminal court as an accused is a serious matter that affects one's dignity, self-respect and image in the society."

The High Court however clarified that Kuzhalnadan is not precluded from filing a fresh complaint with adequate materials in the future. It also quashed the Vigilance Court's observation that political motive might have triggered the petitioner for initiation of the prosecution. The Court held that such an observation was unwarranted. 

Case Details : MATHEW A. KUZHALNADAN Versus PINARAYI VIJAYAN AND ORS.| Diary No. 33761-2025