A recent directive by the Kerala High Court, ordering the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena, and his son-in-law P.A. Mohamed Riyas, has sparked significant legal debate. According to legal experts, the court's decision to bypass the individuals involved and proceed without offering them an opportunity to be heard may constitute a denial of natural justice. This procedural gap provides a potential basis for the trio to challenge the single judge’s order before a higher appellate court.
Critics of the ruling also point to potential conflicts with Section 17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This provision requires prior approval from the relevant competent authority before police can initiate inquiries into public servants performing official duties. The 2018 amendment to this act was specifically designed to shield government officials from unnecessary litigation. As the question of whether courts can override these statutory safeguards is currently under consideration by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, experts suggest the High Court's directive faces significant legal hurdles regarding its validity.
The Vigilance bureau is now expected to register an FIR against Mr. Vijayan and Mr. Riyas under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, the Enforcement Directorate is expected to utilize these corruption allegations as a predicate offence to pursue charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. While these provisions do not apply to T. Veena, who is not a public servant, she remains subject to scrutiny by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office regarding alleged corporate fraud involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited. The ultimate trajectory of the case against her remains contingent upon a separate challenge currently pending before the Delhi High Court.
Comments