# Supreme Court halts Vijayan corruption probe for seven days

> The apex court stayed investigation into a CMRL-Exalogic payoff FIR against former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter and son-in-law, sending the case back to the High Court.
- Title: Supreme Court halts Vijayan corruption probe for seven days
- Summary: The apex court stayed investigation into a CMRL-Exalogic payoff FIR against former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter and son-in-law…
- Keywords: pinarayi vijayan, supreme court, cmrl-exalogic payoff, corruption fir, kerala police, directorate of enforcement, prevention of corruption act, prevention of money laundering act, kerala high court, news, politics, Supreme
- Source: The Hindu — https://thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/sc-sets-aside-kerala-hc-order-in-cmrl-payoff-case-stays-fir-probe-for-7-days/article71606685.ece
- Author: Krishnadas Rajagopal
- Published: 2026-10-21T07:29:01+00:00
- Read time: 2 min
- Topics: pinarayi vijayan, supreme court, cmrl-exalogic payoff, corruption fir, kerala police, directorate of enforcement, prevention of corruption act, prevention of money laundering act, kerala high court, news, politics
## Supreme Court stays investigation for seven days
The Supreme Court on October 21, 2026 stayed a Kerala Police investigation into a corruption FIR against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law P.A. Mohamed Riyas.
## The case involves CMRL-Exalogic payoff allegations
The FIR relates to the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case. A Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court had directed police to register it under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
## ED information prompted the FIR registration
The Kerala High Court based its order on information given by the Directorate of Enforcement to Kerala Police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
## Vijayan denied appeal permission by High Court
On October 15, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court denied Vijayan, his daughter and son-in-law leave to appeal the Single Judge Bench order of October 9, forcing them to approach the Supreme Court.
## Special Bench convened during Dussehra vacations
A Special Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana convened during Dussehra vacations to hear eighty-two-year-old Vijayan, who voiced fears of imminent arrest.
## Vijayan claims procedural violations in FIR order
Vijayan and his co-petitioners, represented by senior advocates Siddharth Luthra, N. Hariharan and Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, submitted they were neither made parties nor heard before the FIR registration was ordered.
## Court rejects ED's interpretation of PMLA
Justice Bagchi said Section 66(2) of the PMLA was not a mandate but only an intimation of information. The police alone must decide if any other law applied requiring an FIR.

> The PMLA cannot be a 'Super Administrator', mandating everything everywhere.
## Justice Bagchi warns ED against overreach
Justice Bagchi advised the ED not to extend its statutory powers under the PMLA.While the ED had full powers to investigate under the PMLA, it would not meddle in the statutory domains of other entities.
## High Court must address procedural issues
The Supreme Court set aside the October 15 High Court order and directed the Division Bench to hear Vijayan's appeals against the FIR registration, considering procedural violations and new criminal procedure provisions.
## Investigation stays pending High Court decision
Justice Bagchi stated the FIR would be maintained but investigation would not proceed until the High Court Division Bench decided the appeals. The court gave liberty to challenge the Enforcement Case Information Report separately.

> We will not disturb the FIR, but we will stall the investigation. Further, we are sending this case back to the High Court for adjudication.
## Key takeaway

The Supreme Court stayed a corruption investigation against former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan for seven days and ordered the High Court to hear his appeal, citing procedural violations.