Pinarayi Vijayan's Appeals Restored: SC on Locus to Appeal

Non-Parties Facing Court-Ordered FIR Had Locus to Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Pinarayi Vijayan's Appeals to Kerala High Court

Published: 24 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that Pinarayi Vijayan and the other appellants, who were not parties to the writ petition in which a Kerala High Court Single Judge directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register FIRs on information from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), had locus to appeal, and that the Division Bench wrongly refused them leave. The appeals were restored and the investigation stayed for ten days, with no opinion on the merits (paras 12-18).

Key holdings

An FIR ordered by a court differs from one the State registers on its own on ED's Section 66(2) communication (para 12).

Non-parties may appeal a judicial finding that the material against them discloses a cognizable offence (paras 12, 15).

Section 175(4) BNSS involves the public servant and his superior before investigation is ordered; it was cited only to show the new law's approach (paras 12, 14).

A direction to investigate and file a final report may engage sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act (para 14).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The Enforcement Directorate shared information with the Kerala Government under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, based, it says, on materials from an SFIO investigation into M/s CMRL and M/s Exalogic (para 7). A nine-member SIT was set up for a preliminary enquiry (para 8). The writ petitioner says the information prima facie discloses Prevention of Corruption Act offences by the former Chief Minister, his daughter, son-in-law (a former Minister) and others (para 6). A Single Judge quashed the preliminary-enquiry decision and directed the Bureau to register FIRs, investigate and file the final report (para 9); the State says FIRs were registered on 12.10.2026 (para 5). The Division Bench refused the appellants, non-parties to the writ, leave to appeal (para 10).

Court's Findings

The Court rejected the plea that, under Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the State was bound to register the FIRs and the appellants had no right to be heard (paras 11-12). This was not a case of the State registering an FIR on its own on ED's communication: the FIRs and the investigation followed a judicial order in which the Single Judge observed that the material disclosed a cognizable offence (para 12). If the appellants could not assail that finding in appeal, it would come in their way in any independent challenge to the FIRs (para 12). The scheme for judicially directed FIRs has also changed: Section 156(3) of the old Code did not involve the public servant or his superior, while Section 175(4) of the BNSS requires a report from the superior officer and consideration of the public servant's assertions (para 12). This was cited not on the merits but to show the new law's wider scope for a potential accused's participation (para 14). The Single Judge had also gone beyond registration, which Vijay Madanlal Choudhary mandates, by directing investigation and a final report, which may engage sanction under Section 17A (para 14). The appellants therefore had locus (para 15).

Legal Principle

Where an FIR is registered and investigated under a High Court order that records a finding that the material discloses a cognizable offence, persons affected who were not parties to the writ have locus to appeal against it, because that finding would otherwise come in their way in any later challenge to the FIR (paras 12, 15).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

When a High Court, on a writ petition, orders FIRs against persons who are not parties to it, can they appeal? This order says they had locus: the Single Judge's finding that the material discloses a cognizable offence would otherwise come in their way in any later challenge to the FIR (paras 12, 15). The ruling is on locus only, not the merits (para 17). Persons facing a court-ordered FIR should seek leave to appeal promptly and apply for interim relief; the stay here lasted only ten days (para 18). On when Section 17A applies in corruption cases, see Tejaram, where the Supreme Court held that no prior approval is needed for bribe-demand cases.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 11, 14
Relied on by the writ petitioner for the State's duty to register an FIR on ED's Section 66(2) PMLA communication without hearing the accused. The Court accepted that registration of an FIR is its mandate, but held that here the FIRs followed a judicial order that also directed investigation and a final report, so the persons affected had locus to appeal.

Statutory Provisions