Thiruvananthapuram: The CMRL-Exalogic controversy has entered a fresh legal phase, with the Advocate General and the Director General of Prosecution reportedly advising that the material submitted by the Enforcement Directorate can be acted upon and that a case may be registered if a cognisable offence is made out.
The legal opinion, according to reports, has found prima facie material to examine allegations of bribery and disproportionate assets involving Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and his son-in-law P.A. Mohammed Riyas. It has also reportedly stated that acceptance of an alleged bribe through a third party or for the benefit of another person can attract provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The opinion follows the ED’s communication to the State Police Chief seeking registration of a case based on material gathered during its money-laundering investigation into payments made by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL) to Veena’s now-defunct company, Exalogic Solutions.
The allegation
The ED has alleged that CMRL paid ₹2.78 crore to Exalogic without corresponding services being rendered and has characterised the payments as part of an alleged bribery arrangement. In its report to the State authorities, the agency has further alleged that money was routed to Pinarayi Vijayan through Veena and that Riyas was linked to the subsequent movement of funds. These are allegations contained in the ED’s investigation and remain to be established through due process.
The latest legal opinion reportedly refers to the Income Tax Department’s earlier findings concerning payments made to Exalogic and says the available material can be examined under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also refers to the statutory presumption concerning acceptance of undue advantage, subject to the prosecution first establishing the foundational facts required by law.
Government decision awaited
The legal opinion places the next decision with the State Government.
Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala has said that the Home Department is examining the opinion and that further action would be decided after consultations with Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan.
The options before the authorities include registration of an FIR or, if considered necessary, a preliminary inquiry before taking further action. The legal opinion itself does not amount to a judicial finding of guilt.
The State Government had earlier sought legal advice on whether action could be initiated on the basis of the ED communication. The subsequent opinion has reportedly held that an investigation can be undertaken, leaving the government to determine the appropriate course of action.
A distinction that matters
The development marks a shift in the CMRL-Exalogic controversy from a predominantly political dispute to a question of criminal investigation and evidence.
An ED report, a legal opinion or an FIR does not by itself establish criminal liability. The allegations will have to withstand investigation and, if a prosecution follows, judicial scrutiny.
The immediate question, therefore, is not whether the allegations have been proved, but whether the material available is sufficient to warrant a formal criminal investigation.
For the State Government, the decision on the ED’s request is now the next significant step in a case that has remained one of Kerala’s most closely watched political and legal controversies.
