Kerala Court Rejects Plea Seeking Probe into CM Vijayan’s Daughter Firm


A vigilance court in Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) dismissed the petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan on Monday, seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged financial transactions between a private mining company and the now-defunct IT company of T Veena, the daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

Congress MLA’s Plea

Initially, Kuzhalnadan moved the Special Vigilance Court, stating that the Vigilance Department had refused to investigate the financial transactions between Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL) and Veena’s company Exalogic. However, he later changed his stance and requested a court-monitored probe into the alleged financial transactions.

Following a comprehensive hearing on the documents submitted by the Congress legislator, the court dismissed the plea. In response, Kuzhalnadan expressed surprise at the unexpected order and indicated that further action would be taken after reviewing the judgment.

Previously, a plea by a social activist for an investigation into alleged illegal financial transactions between CMRL, Veena’s firm, and suspected political leaders was dismissed by the Vigilance Special Court in Muvattupuzha due to lack of evidence.

Controversial Transactions

Currently, the High Court is considering a revision petition challenging that order. A controversy arose in Kerala following media reports that CMRL had paid a total of Rs 1.72 crore to the CM’s daughter between 2017 and 2020. These reports referred to the ruling of an interim board for settlement and stated that CMRL had previously entered into an agreement with Veena’s IT firm for consulting and software support services.

It was further alleged that although no services were rendered by her firm, the amount was paid on a monthly basis “due to her relationship with a prominent person.” The report also mentioned findings by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) regarding her firm. Quoting the ROC report, the Congress-led UDF opposition claimed that offenses of receiving money using false documents and without providing services had been committed by Veena’s firm.

Read More: Supreme CourtDelhi High CourtStates High CourtOther CourtsInternational

Recommended For You

About the Author: Nunnem Gangte