Supreme Court grants Pinarayi Vijayan locus to challenge FIR order

The Supreme Court determined whether the appellants were entitled to seek leave to appeal against the order that mandated FIR registration and investigation.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Pinarayi Vijayan and others (former Chief Minister, daughter, son-in-law). Respondents: K M Shajahan and others, including the State and the Enforcement Directorate. Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.

What the court decided

• Set aside the High Court's judgment and order that had dismissed the appellants' application for leave to appeal.
• Permit the appellants to pursue their appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
• Restore the appeals to the file.
• Stay the investigation in the impugned FIRs for a period of ten days from the date of the order (October 21, 2026) to allow appellants to seek interim relief.
• Clarify that the stay is not a conclusive opinion on interim relief and the Division Bench retains the authority to fashion such relief independently.
• Note that a subsequent ECIR has been registered, keeping its validity open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings without expressing an opinion on it.

Also in the document

• The Court held that the appellants had locus to prefer the appeal because the High Court order directed not only FIR registration but also the commencement of investigation and filing of a final report, which may require consideration of statutory requirements like sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• The Court referenced Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to elucidate the expansive jurisdiction regarding the participation of a potential accused prior to FIR registration, distinguishing it from the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The Court explicitly stated that its observations were limited to the issue of locus and did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.