Persons Aggrieved by a Court-Ordered FIR Have Locus to Appeal, Rules Supreme Court in Pinarayi Vijayan v. K. M. Shajahan
Case: Pinarayi Vijayan v. K. M. Shajahan & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 21 October 2026 (interim order of the special vacation bench)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Proceedings: SLP (Criminal) No. 20437 of 2026 and connected matters
Court Observation
“We direct that the investigation in the impugned FIRs shall remain stayed for a period of ten days from today, which, however, shall not be treated as a conclusive opinion expressed on interim relief, and the Division Bench [of the Kerala High Court] shall be entitled to fashion independently such relief in accordance with law”
Summary
Former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and his son-in-law P. A. Mohamed Riyas approached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court refused to let them appeal a Single Judge’s direction to register a corruption FIR against them in the CMRL–Exalogic matter. The Supreme Court restored their right of appeal, holding that where an FIR is registered pursuant to a judicial order recording findings, the persons affected have a prima facie case for locus to challenge that order in appeal.
The Court kept the FIRs intact and stayed the investigation for ten days so that the petitioners could seek interim relief before the Kerala High Court Division Bench, making it clear that its observations expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Holdings
- A person aggrieved by a judicial order directing registration of an FIR has a prima facie case for locus to seek leave to appeal against that order.
- Where the FIR and the commencement of investigation flow from an order of a constitutional court recording findings that material discloses a cognizable offence — and not from the State acting on its own — the affected persons must be allowed to assail those findings in appeal.
- Under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the scheme for registering an FIR through judicial intervention has changed from Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: it now requires involving the public servant or his superior in the decision to direct registration of an FIR.
- The commencement of investigation and taking it to its logical conclusion under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 require compliance with the other conditions of that special law.
- The Court’s observations are confined to the locus of the appellants to prefer the appeal and express no opinion on the merits.
- While the Enforcement Directorate has full powers to investigate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it must not meddle in the statutory domains of other entities or interfere with the statutory responsibilities of other investigative agencies.
Directions Issued
- The Kerala High Court Division Bench’s order refusing leave to appeal was set aside and the petitioners’ appeals were restored to the Division Bench’s file.
- Investigation in the FIRs shall remain stayed for ten days from 21 October 2026 (the written order; seven days had been orally pronounced in court), without being treated as a conclusive opinion on interim relief — the Division Bench may fashion interim relief independently in accordance with law.
- The FIRs themselves were not quashed and remain in place.
Background
The Enforcement Directorate, during a money-laundering investigation, shared material with the Kerala Government alleging that Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited made fraudulent payments of about Rs. 2.78 crore to Exalogic Solutions under the guise of IT consultancy services. On a writ petition by advocate K. M. Shajahan, a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 9 October 2026 directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A Division Bench on 15 October 2026 dismissed the applications of Vijayan, Veena and Riyas for leave to appeal, holding that an accused in a corruption case has no right to be heard before registration of an FIR. The Supreme Court heard the matter through a special vacation bench on 21 October 2026.
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
