Exalogic case: CM Pinarayi Vijayan files affidavit in Kerala high court opposing CBI probe

Time of India

5 hours ago

Kochi: Chief minister
Pinarayi Vijayan
has filed a counter-affidavit before high court opposing the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a CBI probe into the controversial Exalogic-CMRL transaction, terming it a 'politically instigated litigation'.
In his affidavit, he denied all allegations, including the claim that Exalogic Solutions, a now-defunct company owned by his daughter T Veena, is his 'benami company,' and that he received illegal gratification from CMRL.
The PIL filed by senior journalist M R Ajayan alleged that Exalogic received Rs 1.72 crore from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) as illegal gratification. He also sought an investigation into the alleged political nexus involving the CM and the companies concerned.
During the last hearing, the court had directed the respondents, including the CM, to file their counter-affidavits. The matter is posted for further consideration on June 17.
In his 19-page affidavit, Vijayan submitted that the petitioner had failed to produce any material to substantiate the allegations, terming the PIL a "textbook case of a fishing expedition", an attempt to prompt a roving inquiry without foundational facts.
He contended that the prayer for a CBI probe was devoid of genuine public interest and was instead driven by personal and political motives, targeting him and his daughter based on a single private commercial arrangement.
Vijayan stated that, as per his understanding, Exalogic was engaged to provide software and marketing consultancy services to CMRL under a legitimate agreement, and that all transactions were duly accounted for through banking channels.
He disclaimed any knowledge of or involvement in his daughter's business affairs, stating that she acted independently.
He also denied the allegation that he was the 'kingpin' in the transfer of Kovalam Palace to a private businessman, asserting that he had exercised no undue influence in the matter. He pointed out that he assumed office well after the transfer took place.
Further, he submitted that the petitioner had neither alleged any bias or collusion on the part of the vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (VACB) nor challenged the decision of the vigilance court, which declined to direct registration of an FIR in the case. Vijayan also contended that the petitioner had failed to implead the state govt as a respondent and that entertaining a petition in the absence of any evidence of bias or inaction would undermine the constitutional framework of federalism.
Additionally, he submitted that an investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is already in progress, and therefore, parallel investigations by other agencies into the same allegation cannot be undertaken.