New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and her husband (a former Minister), who were not parties to a writ petition filed by K.M. Shajahan, have locus to appeal against a High Court Single Judge’s order directing registration of an FIR and investigation against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
It set aside the Kerala High Court Division Bench’s refusal to grant them leave to appeal, restored the appeals, and stayed the investigation for ten days to let them seek interim relief, while clarifying that it expressed no opinion on merits.
A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, in an order dated 21.10.2026, granted leave and disposed of appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 20437, 20425, 20471 and 20504 of 2026 against the High Court’s order of 15.10.2026. The Single Judge had quashed the State’s decision to hold a preliminary enquiry and directed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, to register an FIR on information furnished under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for the offences disclosed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, to investigate, and to file a final report. FIRs were registered on 12.10.2026.
The appellants, who were not parties to the writ proceedings, sought leave to appeal, which the Division Bench refused. It reasoned that the order did not affect their right to pursue remedies against the FIR, that no preliminary inquiry is needed where sufficient material disclosing cognizable offences accompanies a Section 66(2) communication, and that an accused in a corruption case has no legal right to be heard before an FIR is registered.
The respondent-writ petitioner, Mr. Shajahan, relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, to submit that the State was obliged to register an FIR on a Section 66(2) communication and that accused persons have no right of hearing at that stage. However the Supreme Court did not accept this.
It distinguished the case on the ground that the State had not registered the case on its own on receiving the communication; the FIR and investigation followed a judicial order, in which the Single Judge had observed that the material disclosed a cognizable offence. If the appellants were not allowed to assail that finding in appellate proceedings, it would stand in their way in any independent proceeding challenging the FIR.
The Court then pointed to a change in the statutory scheme of judicially directed FIRs. Under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the Magistrate’s discretion did not require participation of the public servant or his superior. Section 175(4) of the BNSS now permits a Magistrate to order investigation on a complaint against a public servant arising from the discharge of official duties only after receiving a report from the officer superior to him and after considering the public servant’s assertions. The Union’s counsel argued that this would not apply to former public servants in corruption cases. The Court said it referred to the provision not on the merits, but to show the expansive jurisdiction envisaged in the new law for the participation of a potential accused before registration of an FIR.
The Court further observed that the Single Judge had directed not only registration of an FIR, which is the mandate in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, but also commencement of investigation and filing of a final report, which may require consideration of other statutory requirements under the special law, including sanction under Section 17A. It held:
“These facts clearly show the appellants had locus to prefer appeal against the impugned judgment and order and their prayer for leave to appeal were incorrectly turned down.”
The Court set aside the Division Bench’s order, restored the appeals, and gave the appellants liberty to seek interim relief, directing that investigation in the FIRs remain stayed for ten days without that being a conclusive opinion on interim relief, leaving the Division Bench free to fashion relief independently.
It made clear that its observations were limited to the appellants’ locus. It also noted that a subsequent ECIR had been registered, expressed no opinion on its validity, and left it open to be challenged in appropriate proceedings.
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Koshy John, Advocate (Respondent No. 1); Mr. Ramesh Babu, Senior Advocate (State); Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Advocate (Enforcement Directorate).
Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan vs. K.M. Shajahan & Ors., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 20437 of 2026
