Supreme Court Verdict in CMRL-Exalogic Case a Major Setback for ED-VD Nexus in Keralam: P Rajeev

Thiruvananthapuram: CPI(M) Central Committee member P Rajeev has described the Supreme Court verdict in the CMRL-Exalogic case as a major setback for what he called the ED-UDF nexus in Keralam. He said the Supreme Court had upheld all the arguments the party had raised before the High Court.

“We had earlier argued that registering an FIR in a case without hearing the person concerned was wrong,” Rajeev said. He added that courts provide citizens with a legal and constitutional mechanism to seek the quashing of FIR registered arbitrarily by the police or the Vigilance Department. However, when a court itself directly orders the registration of an FIR, it obstructs the effective exercise of this right, he said.

Rajeev said that an FIR need not be registered immediately based on information provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The investigating officer must examine the preliminary evidence before taking a decision and has the authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry if necessary, he said.

One of the key legal questions in the case was the extent to which a court could interfere with an investigating officer’s authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry. Rajeev alleged that the High Court Division Bench had refused permission to file an appeal without considering the actual legal questions raised in the case.

The issues examined by the court included whether a preliminary inquiry was necessary before registering an FIR and whether the persons accused of an offence had to be heard. Rajeev said these were not the actual questions raised by the party but were only general principles.

“The Supreme Court has said that an FIR should be registered only when the investigating officer is satisfied that there is preliminary evidence,” he said.

He clarified that the second question was not whether accused persons should ordinarily be heard before an FIR was registered. Instead, the party had argued that when a single judge hears a public interest litigation (PIL) in which the names of people who could potentially be implicated are mentioned, the principles of natural justice require that they also be heard.

According to him, neither of these two key questions had been framed in the High Court Division Bench's judgment. He said the Supreme Court had now recognised the right to be heard.

When a special leave petition is dismissed, the appeal is ordinarily dismissed as well, he said. The order refusing permission to file an appeal has now been set aside, bringing the appeal back before the High Court Division Bench for fresh consideration.

Rajeev said the state government itself should have filed the appeal. Had it done so, others would not have needed to seek special permission to pursue the matter. He accused the state government of failing to discharge its primary responsibility under the legal system.

He further alleged that the government had acted with undue haste in registering the FIR, moving quickly as soon as it received the court's order and justifying its action in the name of the court. He said Keralam's approach was contrary to the position adopted by the Congress at the national level.

“If the ED submits a report tomorrow against the Chief Minister in Karnataka or against Rahul Gandhi, the same position would mean that an FIR must be registered immediately,” Rajeev said.

He alleged that the Keralam government had effectively surrendered the right to challenge such an approach. According to him, the episode had exposed what he described as the Congress's tendency to align with the BJP while ignoring the broader implications for national politics.