Let The Law Test The Ex-Chief Minister Of Keralam
· Free Press Journal
Former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan had a ready answer whenever the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation involving his family came under scrutiny. Only those who had something in their pockets, he would say, had reason to fear central agencies such as the ED.
Visit sportbet.rodeo for more information.
The remark was clearly meant to dismiss the allegations against himself, his daughter Veena T and her company Exalogic Solutions, and his son-in-law, former minister and present MLA Mohammed Riyas, whose alleged financial dealings had come under the agency’s scanner. The tables have now turned rather dramatically.
The ED has sent a report to the Kerala Director General of Police seeking registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Vijayan, his daughter, and his son-in-law. The allegations are not vague political insinuations; they are specific and potentially grave.
ED Allegations Against Vijayan
According to the ED, Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) paid Rs 2.78 crore to Exalogic for services that, investigators allege, were never actually rendered. The agency has further alleged that Vijayan received Rs 3.28 crore as illegal gratification through his daughter.
It has also alleged that Riyas was involved in facilitating the movement of the money and its remittance to Dubai through associates. If established, such transactions could constitute bribery as well as money laundering. These are allegations, not convictions. That distinction is fundamental.
But allegations this serious cannot simply be wished away as political vendetta either. The V.D. Satheesan government is now in an unenviable position. It has to decide whether the ED report warrants immediate registration of an FIR.
The decision cannot be dictated by the political stature of the accused. Nor can the government use the report as an opportunity to settle political scores with Satheesan’s predecessor. The only defensible course is to apply the law impartially.
CPI(M) Accuses Centre Of Misuse
The CPI(M) has predictably rejected the allegations and accused the centre of misusing investigative agencies. Its comparison with the treatment of Arvind Kejriwal is understandable in the larger debate over the selective use of central agencies.
The ED and CBI have given enough grounds for questioning their independence and priorities. But then, two wrongs do not make a right. When investigative agencies act improperly, the remedy is judicial scrutiny, parliamentary accountability, and public criticism, not physical obstruction.
The reported use of party cadres to confront ED officials was as undemocratic as any misuse of the agency itself. The rule of law cannot be defended by obstructing the agencies enforcing it.
Vijayan and his family now have the opportunity to establish that the allegations are baseless. The government, for its part, must resist both intimidation and temptation. Let the law now determine whose pockets are heavy and whose are not.