Vijayan’s graft case acquittal challenged
Central investigating agency files affidavit in top court against Kerala chief minister
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has contended in the Supreme Court that Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who was discharged from all criminal and corruption charges in the SNC Lavalin case, “should face trial”.
In an affidavit filed in the court, the Central Bureau of Investigation questioned the discharge of Vijayan and two others, arguing that the Kerala High Court orders pertaining to the matter were “not correct”.
The CBI has challenged the High Court’s August 23, 2017, order to discharge Vijayan, K. Mohanachandran, former principal secretary in the Department of Power, and A. Francis, the then joint secretary in the department. The High Court had given the goahead for the trial of remaining three accused, who are Kerala State Electricity Board officials.
Objecting to the High Court’s decision to discharge certain accused and making the remaining charged persons to face trial, the CBI said: “Vijayan should also face trial for the same set of offences”.
“The specific acts and omissions of each accused can only be decided in a properly conducted trial and the discharge of some accused may adversely impact the outcome vis-a-vis those tried in court,” said the CBI affidavit.
Vijayan has not responded to the CBI move so far.
The case pertains to an agreement with Canadian firm SNC Lavalin in 1997 for the renovation and modernisation of the Pallivasai, Sengulam and Panniar hydroelectric projects in Idukki district of Kerala, which allegedly caused a loss of Rs2.66 billion to the exchequer.
CBI contention
Vijayan was Kerala’s power minister at the time.
The three accused directed to face trial too had approached the apex court, asking why they were not treated on par with Vijayan and the two coaccused discharged in the case.
The CBI maintained that the High Court order was “bad in law” and its findings that Vijayan and two others need not face the trial amounts to “clear differentiation” between two sets of accused.
A bench of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Abdul Nazeer had earlier stayed the trial of the case and sought the CBI’s response.