Premium

‘Fight political battles before electorate’: SC to Congress MLA seeking probe into Kerala CM’s daughter’s firm

MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan had initially approached the vigilance court and then the Kerala High Court seeking a probe into allegations that CMRL was paying a monthly sum to CM Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter and her firm.

Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter Veena Vijayan. (Source: File)

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Kerala High Court order rejecting a plea for further probe into allegations of fraudulent financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, an IT company owned by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter Veena Vijayan.

Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, presiding over a two-judge bench also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, told petitioner Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan, “We have been consistently saying, fight your political battles before the electorate and not in the Court.”

Appearing for the legislator, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar told the bench that “the high court at some stage finds that there is something to be looked at.” Justice Chandran, however, disagreed and said that the high court did not say so.

Story continues below this ad

The senior counsel, however, stated that it is a fact that there was a contract between CMRL and Exalogic, and that Rs 1.72 crore was paid to the latter. He pointed out that CMRL had admitted before the Income Tax Interim Settlement Board that no services were rendered by the IT company.

“The 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,” Krishnakumar said, adding that the high court was in error by insisting on “proven facts” at the pre-cognizance stage.

The CJI, however, reiterated, “Don’t use the Court’s forum (for political battle).”

The Congress MLA had initially approached the vigilance court seeking a probe into allegations that CMRL was paying a monthly sum to Veena and her company without any services being offered by the latter. He contended that the money was in reality to secure favours from the chief minister. The vigilance court had rejected his request, following which he approached the high court.