Kerala Court dismisses plea for vigilance probe against Pinarayi, Veena and others

A Special Vigilance court in Muvattupuzha in Kochi has rejected a petition filed by an activist seeking action against Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter T Veena and several other prominent politicians in Kerala, for allegedly receiving bribe from a company named Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL). Earlier this month, the I-T department, which had investigated the finances of CMRL found that the company has been systematically inflating its expenses and made payments in cash to several individuals including media houses and politicians including Pinarayi Vijayan, Congress leaders Ramesh Chennithala, Ibrahim Kunju, A Govindan and IUML leader Kunhalikutty. 

The vigilance court said that petitioner Gireesh Babu could not establish that Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena and the others had done any favours for the company despite the payments. 

The Income Tax Interim Settlement board, in their report, had said that CMRL had made a total payment of Rs 1.72 crore to Veena and her company, Exalogic Solutions Pvt Ltd, between 2017 and 2020. It was also mentioned in the report that the money was paid without receiving any services in return from Veena and her company. 

Gireesh had alleged that the ‘payment of bribes of such an alarming amount undue advantage, privilege and consideration to the company warrants detailed investigation’ as the six politicians were Members of the Legislative Assembly during the time of the alleged transactions.

The court however said that quid pro quo could not be proven. “In this petition, apart from the general allegations made, complainant has not furnished any material facts which will show that respondents 2 to 6 (Pinarayi, Chennithala, Kunjalikutty, Ibrahim Kunju and A Govindan) had given any favours to 8th respondent (KMRL) in their capacity as public servants in return for the alleged payments. There is no case for the petitioner that any of the respondents had officially dealt with any matters pertaining to 8th respondent.  

The court further said that ‘apart from making a general statement that the payments are bribery for consideration, the complaint does not disclose the material particulars which will show a prima facie case of commission of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’. 

“The Complaint also does not say which offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is committed by respondents,” the judge added.