KOCHI (Friday, March 6, 2026) — The Kerala High Court on Friday made significant oral observations while hearing a plea by former State Transport Minister Antony Raju, questioning the feasibility of proving “criminal intention” in a 36-year-old evidence tampering case. Justice C. Jayachandran, while considering Raju’s petition to stay his conviction, noted that the accused was a junior lawyer at the time and questioned how specific motive could be attributed to him without a “special interest” in the client.
Key Judicial Observations
The hearing focused on whether Raju, as a junior advocate in 1990, could be held criminally liable for the alleged swapping of a crucial piece of evidence—a pair of underwear—in a narcotics case involving an Australian national.
- Junior vs. Senior Responsibility: The court asked whether the senior lawyer in the case was aware of the tampering. It remarked that unless the prosecution proves a “special connection” or “special knowledge,” it is difficult to fasten mens rea (guilty mind) on a junior merely assisting his senior.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Justice Jayachandran observed that at best, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. “Just because he took and returned [the article], can it be said that he tampered with it?” the judge asked, noting the chain of evidence appeared incomplete.
- The Intention Factor: The court highlighted that proving a lawyer had the specific intention to commit a “mischief” like evidence tampering—especially when acting as an officer of the court—requires more than just the physical act of handling the object.
The Case Timeline: “The Underwear That Didn’t Fit”
The case is one of Kerala’s most unusual legal sagas, spanning over three decades.
| Year | Event |
| 1990 | Australian national Andrew Salvatore Cervelli arrested with drugs hidden in his underwear. |
| 1991 | Cervelli acquitted by HC after the underwear produced in court was too small to fit him. |
| 1994 | FIR registered against Antony Raju (junior lawyer) and K.J. Jose (court clerk) for tampering. |
| 2024 | Supreme Court restores the case after years of technical delays. |
| Jan 3, 2026 | Raju convicted and sentenced to 3 years; consequently disqualified as an MLA. |
| Mar 6, 2026 | Kerala HC reserves verdict on his plea to stay the conviction. |
Political Stakes
The outcome of this plea is critical for Raju’s political future.
- Disqualification: Under the Representation of the People Act, his conviction has already led to his disqualification from the Kerala Assembly.
- Election Eligibility: Raju is seeking a stay on the conviction itself (not just the sentence) to allow him to contest the upcoming 2026 Assembly elections.
- State’s Opposition: The Kerala government has strongly opposed the stay, arguing that granting relief to a convicted legislator solely to contest an election would “undermine the integrity of the electoral process.”
Sources
- Press Trust of India (PTI): “Difficult to prove Antony Raju had intention to tamper with evidence: Kerala HC” (March 6, 2026)
- Live Law: “Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Ex-MLA Antony Raju’s Plea Against Conviction” (March 6, 2026)
- Bar and Bench: “Difficult to prove charges against Antony Raju in underwear case: Kerala High Court” (March 6, 2026)
- The Hindu: “Kerala HC questions intent in 35-year-old evidence tampering case” (March 6, 2026)
- The Week: “Difficult to prove Antony Raju wanted to tamper with evidence: Kerala High Court” (March 6, 2026)
Leave a Reply