Kerala: Vigilance Court Dismisses Congress MLA’s Petition
N S Sajith
or reload the browser
IN a significant setback for the Congress and its legislator Mathew Kuzhalnadan, the Vigilance Court in Thiruvananthapuram has dismissed his petition demanding an inquiry against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter T Veena. Congress leaders including Kuzhalnadan sought a direct inquiry by the vigilance court into his allegations concerning Exalogic Solutions Private Limited. Judge M V Rajakumara unequivocally declared the petition as being politically motivated, finding no irregularities under the anti-corruption act. Despite repeated queries from the court, Kuzhalnadan failed to produce any evidence in support of his claims. The court's judgment concluded with criticism of Kuzhalnadan's apparent attempt to gain attention through baseless allegations with the help of pro-UDF media outlets.
During the consideration of the petition against the chief minister and his daughter, the court repeatedly urged petitioner Mathew Kuzhalnadan to present evidence. However, instead of providing evidence, Kuzhalnadan requested a rehearing of the petition. Dismissing this request, the court questioned why Kuzhalnadan approached the court without evidence and noted that all demands made by CMRL, a mining company, were already rejected by the state government.
In his petition, Mathew Kuzhalnadan alleged that the chief minister intervened to secure undue profits for a mining firm, with the chief minister’s daughter receiving Rs 1.72 crore as remuneration. However, the court found no evidence to support these claims, even after scrutinising 28 documents submitted by the petitioner. Further, there are no contracts between the mining company and Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, which is owned by the state government.
Additionally, the petitioner accused the chief minister of intervening to bypass the land ceiling for the mining company. The court dismissed this, stating that the chief minister's involvement in the company's applications was merely part of official procedure. Three specific questions were posed by the court: 1) Is there a contract between KMML, a state PSU, and the mining firm CMRL? 2) Did CMRL receive undue assistance for payments made to Veena T? 3) Is there evidence to prove that the government lifted the land ceiling to benefit CMRL? However, the petitioner failed to provide evidence to substantiate his allegations.
In a statement, the CPI(M) state secretariat said that the conspiracy orchestrated by the opposition, with the assistance of central agencies and certain media outlets, has been exposed. They called on opposition leaders to apologise for their unfounded accusations, and said that a script was devised to implicate the chief minister and tarnish his image. The CPI(M) and the chief minister took a stand to welcome any inquiry in this case and to let the truth come out. The statement also highlighted the court's position that the allegations are politically motivated, underscoring the seriousness of this assertion.
or reload the browser
or reload the browser
