BJP national executive member and MLA V. Muraleedharan has said he had never personally collected money for party activities during his six-year tenure as the State party president and had handed over all details of income and expenditure to the party.

Speaking to mediapersons in Thrissur on Friday (September 25), Mr. Muraleedharan said he was prepared to face any inquiry if there were allegations that he had collected money for personal purposes.

“If anyone has collected money in the name of the party from anywhere, the State president alone cannot be held responsible. There is not just one Muraleedharan in the BJP,” he said.

If money was collected in his name, an investigation could be conducted, he said, adding that his accounts could also be scrutinised if there was any suspicion that he had collected money for personal gain.

Mr. Muraleedharan faced allegations after an entry reading “Mr. Muraleedharan BJP” surfaced in a seized diary belonging to Sasidharan Kartha, the owner of CMRL (Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited), allegedly recording a payout of ₹3 lakh.

Mr. Muraleedharan said he had been contesting elections since 2009 and that his asset and income declarations submitted to the Election Commission for every election could be examined. He said he had maintained records of his annual income since his days at the Nehru Yuva Kendra and had submitted the required details during every election.

He also said he had not purchased any land or gold since 2012.

“Someone may have collected money for the party. There is also a possibility that money was collected in the name of the State president. If there is such a suspicion, any investigation can be conducted. But the same standards should be applied to everyone,” he said.

On the financial transactions involving CMRL and Exalogic, Mr. Muraleedharan said documents relating to payments made by CMRL to the company linked to Veena Vijayan had come out and claimed, citing the findings of investigating agencies, that Ms. Vijayan had not clearly explained the services provided in return for the payments.

If an investigating agency had found evidence of money laundering in connection with the transactions, lawful further action should be taken on that basis, he said. The State government should explain why action was being delayed in the name of a preliminary inquiry, he added.

“The Chief Minister and the Home Minister should answer these questions,” he said, alleging that the present approach was part of an understanding between the State government and the CPI(M).

Raising questions over the controversy surrounding Chief Minister V.D. Satheeshan’s air travel, Mr. Muraleedharan asked why the Chief Minister was reluctant to disclose the name of the friend who had arranged the aircraft.