The Supreme Court today has listed a batch of Special Leave Petitions challenging the Kerala High Court's order which discharged the key accused in the infamous Lavalin corruption case, including Kerala's Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and K.A. Francis, the then Energy Department Secretary, to be heard on May 1, 2024.

The bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan noted in the order, "Heard Senior learned Counsels for the parties. Leave granted. Post the matter for final hearing on May 1, 2024".

ASG S.V. Raju today during the arguments, appearing for CBI requested the bench to list the matter on a shorter date somewhere in March or April.

Today during the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of some of the respondents that their earlier Counsels have been designated as senior advocates, therefore they sought more time to file fresh Vakalatnama. Then the Bench agreed that it is a genuine difficulty. Accordingly, the bench granted two weeks' time to file fresh Vakalatnama.

"Milords, we have no difficulty if the matter is fixed on some date. Kindly note milords, this matter has been adjourned about 30 times...since 2017. The CBI is not interested to prosecute the appeal milords. We have filed the SLPs...", argued Senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat appearing for Congress party leader V. M. Sudheeran.

"It would mean that we are slightly liberal, that is all", remarked Justice Kant.

The Counsel on record for the CBI then submitted that they are ready, and are fine with any date that the Court will fix.

"Mr Raju, one way out is that we technically grant leave. And list these cases on a Tuesday, instead of a Wednesday. The idea is because if on Wednesday suppose it continues then you have Thursday also with you. So we can finish one matter in one go, otherwise if on Tuesday it is not taken up, the turn doesn't come or it is part heard, then again it goes to another Tuesday", said Justice Kant.

On a previous date of the hearing, the Court had expressed surprise at CBI's request to adjourn the Lavalin corruption case involving Kerala CM. "This matter is being adjourned today?", had asked Justice Surya Kant upon hearing the request for adjournment. The CBI had earlier sought an adjournment as the ASG Raju was held up before some other Court.

In this case, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had found that excess payments were made to the Lavalin Company without proper authorization in a contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board during the period when Pinarayi Vijayan served as the power minister in the State. The matter has been adjourned on numerous occasions in past and the Chief Minister and the Centre have been facing political criticism for the same.

the Supreme Court had on January 11, 2018, issued notice in all the SLPs and had stayed the trial until further orders. The matter, since then, has been adjourned on multiple occasions on the request of either of the parties.

As per a media report, a voluntary organization working in tribal areas in Kerala and other states had written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Supreme Court Chief Justice DY Chandrachud against Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan requesting not to adjourn Lavlin case further.

In the impugned order, the High Court had noted that Pinarayi Vijayan was nowhere in the picture, when the consultancy contracts were signed. He assumed office as the Electricity Minister in the Kerala Cabinet only in June, 1996.

"I do not find any material to substantiate such an allegation that anything concerning the supply contracts between the SNC Lavalin and the KSEB was suppressed by the 7th accused from the Cabinet. The documents produced by the prosecution include a Cabinet Note also, signed by the then Chief Minister. On consideration of the various aspects reported by the KSEB through the Principal Secretary, the proposal was approved by the Cabinet. Thus, it was a Cabinet decision. If so, there is no explanation why the CBI picked and chose the Electricity Minister for prosecution. The CBI does not have any satisfactory explanation as to what vicious role or dishonest role, the Electricity Minister had in the deal, when he got the things approved by the Cabinet, or when the Cabinet as a whole approved the proposal of the KSEB", read the High Court's order.

The Judge also stated that it was s pertinent to note that what the Cabinet approved was not the proposal of the Electricity Minister, but the proposal of the Cabinet happened to give approval on the basis of the materials furnished and reported by the KSEB and if so, it would be unjust and illegal to pick and choose the Electricity Minister and prosecute him, for the wrong or illegality committed by the KSEB.

Cause Title: Kasthuri Ranga Iyer v. State Rep. By Addl. Superintendent of Police CBI & other connected matters

Justice Surya KantJustice KV VishwanathanPinarayi VijayanLavalin case

Agatha Shukla