The CMRL–Exalogic case centres on alleged payments by Kochi-based minerals company CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, associated with Veena T. Investigators questioned whether services were provided in return for the payments.
Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has filed two FIRs in connection with the alleged payments involving Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a company linked to former CM Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter, Veena T. The move comes after the Kerala High Court directed the vigilance agency to investigate allegations of corruption arising from the financial transactions.
Following the registration of the cases, Vijayan, Veena and her husband, P A Mohammed Riyas, have moved the High Court to challenge the single judge’s order. They have argued that the decision was taken without providing them an opportunity to present their side of the case.
VACB Initiates Two Separate Investigations
The vigilance bureau registered the FIRs on Monday, October 12, through its Special Investigation Unit-1. The action followed the High Court’s directions and legal consultation. Both FIRs have been registered under relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The first case relates to alleged payments made by CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, an IT firm previously associated with Veena. Pinarayi Vijayan has been identified as the principal accused in this FIR, while Veena has also been named in the case.
The second FIR deals with allegations concerning the accumulation of wealth through corrupt practices and the suspected movement of funds overseas through unlawful means. Mohammed Riyas, a CPI(M) legislator and Vijayan’s son-in-law, has been named the first accused in this case, while Veena is also among those accused, according to media reports.
The two FIRs cover separate allegations and will be examined independently by the investigating agency. Their registration does not establish the guilt of any individual named in the cases.
Also Read :- India’s First E-Waste Cyber Trojan Horse Unveiled at Cocon 2026 in Kochi
Background to the CMRL–Exalogic Dispute
The controversy emerged in 2023 after an Income Tax investigation examined financial dealings between CMRL, a minerals company based in Kochi, and Exalogic Solutions.
The Income Tax Department’s Interim Board for Settlement scrutinised payments made to Exalogic under an arrangement reportedly involving IT consultancy and related services. The proceedings covered payments of around ₹1.72 crore during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 financial years. Questions were raised over whether the company had delivered the services for which it received the money.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) subsequently scrutinised the financial transactions under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to the agency’s findings, CMRL had allegedly transferred approximately ₹2.78 crore to Exalogic in the name of consultancy and marketing services. The investigation also examined payments reportedly received by Veena for consultancy work.
The ED questioned the nature of these transactions and whether the payments were supported by actual services. The allegations have prompted demands for a criminal investigation and remain subject to scrutiny by the relevant authorities.
High Court Directs Registration of FIR
The legal proceedings gained momentum after activist K M Shajahan approached the Kerala High Court, challenging the state government’s decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry instead of registering an FIR on the basis of information provided by the ED.
The central issue was whether the material shared by the ED warranted a formal criminal investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ED had sent its findings to the state police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, seeking action over suspected offences.
On October 9, Justice A Badharudeen directed the VACB to register an FIR and investigate the allegations. The court observed that the information available at that stage provided sufficient initial grounds to suspect the commission of cognisable offences.
It also ruled that another preliminary inquiry was unnecessary in the circumstances and instructed the ED to supply the relevant records to the vigilance authorities. The order paved the way for the registration of the two FIRs on October 12.
Vijayan and Family Seek Permission to Appeal
Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena T and Mohammed Riyas subsequently filed separate petitions before the High Court’s Division Bench, seeking permission to challenge the single judge’s ruling.
Their challenge centres on the argument that they were not parties to the original proceedings and were not heard before the court directed the registration of an FIR. They have maintained that the absence of an opportunity to respond raises concerns about compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners have also questioned whether the ED’s communication could serve as the basis for directing the state police to register an FIR without conducting a preliminary inquiry. They have argued that the ED cannot determine how the state police should exercise their statutory powers, raising questions about the respective authority of central and state agencies.
The Division Bench was scheduled to take up the petitions at 1.45 pm on Monday, October 12. The request for permission to appeal is a preliminary procedural step, and the court’s decision on that request will determine whether the challenge proceeds further.
The vigilance investigation and the High Court proceedings are now separate but related developments in the case. Investigators will examine the financial transactions and other evidence, while the court will consider the legal objections raised against the order directing the FIRs. The allegations against the individuals named in the cases have not been established as proven offences.
