A vacation bench of justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana set aside the high court’s October 15 order refusing the petitioners leave to appeal against a single judge’s October 9 direction to the state Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR on the basis of information shared by Enforcement Directorate.
Also Read: SC to hear on Oct 21 Vijayan’s plea in CMRL case, YSRCP petition on local body polls
The top court made it clear that its observations were confined to the petitioners’ right to pursue an appeal and did not reflect any opinion on the merits. FIRs will remain in place, while the investigation will remain stayed for a week to enable the petitioners to approach HC’s division bench. The high court will independently decide any interim relief in accordance with the law.
“Don’t extend your hand beyond your statutory limits. We are making it very clear. Don’t use the process of statutory powers to meddle into the statutory domain of other entities,” the bench verbally told ED.
The court said ED was entitled to investigate alleged hawala transactions and examine allegations involving a former chief minister, but the state police had to act in accordance with the law after receiving the agency’s information. The question was whether the material shared under section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act automatically required the state agency to register an FIR, or whether the matter had to be assessed under the statutory framework governing the state’s investigation.
The bench also questioned the urgency with which the matter had been taken to the high court. The state had decided to constitute a special investigation team to conduct a preliminary inquiry after receiving ED’s communication, but the single judge directed registration of an FIR before that exercise could be completed.Also Read: ED to seek Dubai’s help via letters rogatory in probe against ex-Kerala CM, kin
SC noted that FIRs followed a judicial direction based on ED’s information, rather than an independent decision by the state to register them upon receiving that communication. It said the petitioners had made out a prima facie case to seek leave to appeal and could not be denied an opportunity to challenge the findings that would otherwise continue to operate against them. SC expressed displeasure with the Kerala government’s handling of the matter, observing, “We don’t appreciate the state functioning like this.”
It questioned the circumstances in which the matter had proceeded without giving Vijayan and the others an opportunity to challenge the direction via an appeal.
