ED summons to Pinarayi Vijayan puts Congress in a spot as CPI(M) closes ranks

The Enforcement Directorate’s summons to CPI(M) leader and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has triggered two contrasting political responses in Kerala. The CPI(M) has rallied behind its leader, denouncing the case as politically motivated, while the Congress finds itself confronting uncomfortable questions about its own government’s handling of allegations that it had repeatedly raised against the previous LDF regime.

Also read | CMRL-Exalogic case: VACB files 2 FIRs against Pinarayi, daughter, son-in-law

The ED has summoned Vijayan to its Kochi zonal office on October 23 in connection with the alleged financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct IT firm owned by his daughter, T Veena. The agency has also registered separate Enforcement Case Information Reports against Vijayan, Veena and her husband and former PWD minister, PA Mohammed Riyas, in connection with the alleged payments and related hawala transactions.

FIR delay fuels political row

But the political controversy has now shifted to the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government’s initial decision to seek a preliminary inquiry rather than immediately register a First Information Report (FIR), despite receiving materials from the ED. The Kerala High Court subsequently rejected that approach and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to register an FIR.

The court’s intervention has left the Congress leadership defending a decision that has raised questions within its own ranks. For the CPI(M), meanwhile, the developments have offered an opportunity to portray the Congress as inconsistent in its opposition to what it describes as the BJP government’s weaponisation of central investigative agencies.

The dispute began when the ED forwarded a communication to State Police Chief Ravada A Chandrasekhar on September 7, seeking registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The state government sought the Advocate General’s opinion before deciding how to proceed.

The government’s argument was that the material received from the ED had to be examined to determine whether it disclosed a cognisable offence. Acting on legal advice, the police constituted a special team to conduct a preliminary inquiry instead of registering an FIR immediately.

HC order shifts govt stance

Kerala Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala defended the decision as a legally guided process rather than an attempt to shield the former chief minister.

The Kerala High Court, however, found that the material forwarded by the ED was sufficient to warrant an FIR. On October 9, Justice A Badharudeen directed the VACB to register a case and set aside the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry through a special investigation team.

The court held that the information disclosed, prima facie, cognisable offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that a further preliminary inquiry was unnecessary. The order was a setback for the government’s initial legal position, even as Chennithala maintained that the administration had acted on the advice available to it.

On October 11, he announced that the government would comply with the court’s directive and would not appeal against it. The VACB registered two FIRs on October 12.

Congress’ consistency questioned

The sequence has become politically significant because the Congress had made the CMRL-Exalogic allegations a major issue against the previous LDF government. The question now confronting the party is whether its government’s initial caution was legally justified or whether it risked appearing reluctant to pursue allegations it had itself highlighted.

Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan, who has consistently raised allegations against Exalogic, has emerged as one of the sharpest critics of the government’s approach. Kuzhalnadan questioned why Vijayan should be treated differently from former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, who faced allegations during the LDF government’s tenure.

Also read | How the ED raid saved Pinarayi Vijayan from internal party dissent

“Pinarayi Vijayan was the person who handed Oommen Chandy over to the CBI. Today, he claims that registering a case based on the ED’s report means siding with the BJP. Should the Congress and its cadres forget all this? This is not a personal fight against Vijayan but a political battle to uphold the Congress’s self-respect. The people gave us 102 MLAs to ensure accountability and take an uncompromising stand against injustice,” said Kuzhalnadan.

Congress leaders reject criticism

Meanwhile, Chief Minister VD Satheesan and Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala rejected Kuzhalnadan’s criticism. Satheesan said the government would not use the case to settle political scores.

“The government will not misuse its power to settle scores with anyone. There was no undue haste on our part. We have decided to abide by the court’s directives. Decisions were taken after discussions with senior ministers and UDF leaders. The law will take its course,” he said.

The exchange brought the differences into the open, with the chief minister defending the leadership’s cautious handling of the matter.

The CPI(M) maintains that Kuzhalnadan had pursued the matter through multiple rounds of litigation last year, with at least three courts, including the Supreme Court, rejecting his pleas. The party also points to the Supreme Court’s strong remarks against him during the proceedings.

CPI(M) alleges state-ED nexus

On October 6, 2025, a Supreme Court bench led by then CJI BR Gavai reprimanded Kuzhalnadan, observing that political battles should be fought before the electorate, not in court.

Party state secretary MV Govindan has accused the state government of joining hands with the ED to target Vijayan. Responding to the High Court proceedings, he said, “When we examine matters, including the latest order, it indicates a planned move by the state government to target the CPM.”

Govindan also described the case as politically motivated. “It is a fake case being pursued by the ED for the BJP’s political motives, and the VD Satheesan government is now siding with them,” he said, announcing that the CPI(M) would pursue legal and political measures to challenge the proceedings.

The case is based on the alleged payments from CMRL to Exalogic Solutions, the company associated with Vijayan’s daughter Veena.

The ED has alleged that CMRL made payments without receiving corresponding services, and has linked the transactions to a broader alleged bribery arrangement. The amount cited in the investigation includes ₹2.78 crore in payments from CMRL to Veena and Exalogic, along with ₹50 lakh from a CMRL group company, taking the total cited in the court proceedings to ₹3.28 crore. The ED has also investigated alleged hawala transactions linked to the wider financial trail.

ED summons raises political stakes

The High Court’s direction led to the registration of the state Vigilance cases. Vijayan, Veena and Riyas challenged the order, but the High Court division bench subsequently dismissed their pleas seeking permission to appeal. The Supreme Court declined to take up Vijayan’s challenge urgently on October 16, leaving the FIRs in place while the legal battle continues. However, the case will be heard by the Supreme Court by October 26.

Also read | ED summons Pinarayi Vijayan in CMRL money laundering case on Oct 23

That same day, the ED issued a summons directing Vijayan to appear at its Kochi office on October 23. The agency’s move brought the case into a new phase, with Vijayan facing both the state Vigilance investigation and the central agency’s money-laundering probe. According to sources, Pinarayi Vijayan might not appear for questioning until the case comes up before the SC bench.

The CPI(M) has rallied around Vijayan, presenting the case as a political attack. The Congress, meanwhile, is struggling to reconcile its campaign rhetoric with the caution exercised by its government. The ED summons has sharpened that contradiction, turning a corruption allegation into a test of political consistency for both parties.