Kerala High Court Denies CBI Investigation Into Attack on ED Officers

In a notable decision on Friday, the Kerala High Court declined a request to initiate a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the recent assault on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers. These officers had executed a search at the residence of former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, which resulted in the incident cited as Jojo Jose v The Chief Secretary.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, articulated that constitutional courts reserve the authority to mandate a CBI investigation for only rare and exceptional circumstances. Such directions are warranted when there is evidence of bias in the investigation or when a fair examination by the existing agency appears implausible.

Upon reviewing the materials presented, the Bench concluded that there was no prima facie indication of bias or unfairness in the State police’s investigation. “The documents do not suggest that the Investigating Agency has breached its duty or failed to act impartially,” the Court stated. “The extraordinary power to direct a CBI investigation should be used sparingly and with discretion. In the spirit of cooperative federalism, this power should be invoked only when it’s clear the State Investigating Agency is biased, and a fair investigation is unlikely due to the influence of State machinery.”

This judgment came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Jojo Jose advocating for a CBI probe into the attack. The incident in question occurred on May 27, following a search at the former Chief Minister’s house, which was linked to an investigation into the CMRL case. This case involves allegations against Exalogic, an IT firm owned by Vijayan’s daughter, Veena Thaikkandiyil.

Upon the completion of the search, approximately 300 individuals allegedly surrounded the ED officials’ vehicle, hurling stones and bricks, and reportedly employing sticks and rods as weapons. The Court, on June 4, sought a report on the actions taken in response to the incident, deeming it premature to involve the CBI at that stage.

The State’s detailed status report clarified that the Inspector Station House Officer of the Museum Police Station had assumed responsibility for the investigation. It detailed the preparation of scene mahazars, the collection of scientific and video evidence, the identification and arrest of 25 accused individuals, and the recording of statements from 44 witnesses. The report also highlighted ongoing efforts to gather further evidence, including forensic examinations of mobile phones, call data records, fingerprints, and other materials.

Additionally, the State refuted claims of any intelligence lapses or deliberate police inaction. After evaluating the status report, the Court found no grounds to assert that the investigation was unfair, leading to the dismissal of the PIL.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Radhakrishnan R, with Standing Counsel Jaisankar V Nair representing the Enforcement Directorate. Advocate Sreelal N Warrier appeared for the CBI, while Special Government Pleader C Rasheed represented the Director General of Police. Additional Solicitor General P Sreekumar, instructed by Central Government Counsel Amal Parthasaradhy, appeared for the Union Government.