Three decades ago, in January 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received a crucial piece of information from the Australian Interpol National Central Bureau. The Canberra-based agency shared with its Indian counterpart intelligence on an alleged foul play committed in a case that was tried in a court located in Thiruvananthapuram.

The input pertained to the alleged malpractices committed at the behest of an Australian, Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, who was nabbed at the Thiruvananthapuram international airport on April 4, 1990, with narcotic substances stored in two pockets concealed within his undergarment.

The Australian agency stated that some of Cervelli's family members had travelled to India after his arrest and purportedly bribed a court official, who allegedly swapped the underwear worn by Cervelli at the time of arrest with a smaller pair.

A trial court in Thiruvananthapuram had convicted Cervelli for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, but he secured an acquittal from the High Court, which observed that the underwear that was produced as evidence was too small to fit the accused, raising doubts about the prosecution's version. Cervelli was represented in the trial court by a woman lawyer and her junior, Antony Raju. Following his acquittal, Cervelli returned to Australia, where he was later imprisoned in a murder case. The Australian agency sourced the information from an accomplice of Cervelli in the murder case.

The intelligence input rekindled the hopes of K.K. Jayamohan, the Circle Inspector of the Poonthura police station, who had produced the seized contraband, including the undergarment, before the Thiruvananthapuram Judicial Second Class Magistrate-II Court. Jayamohan was waiting for an opportunity to reopen the case and to bring out what he felt was a blatant miscarriage of justice executed through criminal malpractice.

Thirty years after the all-important intelligence sharing by the Australian agency, a trial court in Nedumangad convicted Antony Raju, who later rose in politics to become the State Transport Minister, for tampering with material evidence. The court found Raju and K.S. Jose, a former clerk of the JSCM-II Court, guilty of criminal conspiracy, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false evidence, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, and forgery. The court suspended the punishment to offer him an opportunity to challenge the conviction in a higher court.

The judicial finding also led to the automatic disqualification of Raju as a Member of the Legislative Assembly under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which also bars him from contesting elections for six years. It was probably for the first time that a legislator of the Kerala Assembly was disqualified under this provision following conviction for an offence relating to the administration of justice.

The case, which has acquired significance far beyond the fate of one individual, was marked by long silences, revived investigations and persistent questions about the pace and priorities of the criminal justice system.

Chain of events

At the heart of the case lies an extraordinary chain of events linked to the arrest of Cervelli at the Thiruvananthapuram international airport in 1990. Cervelli was intercepted while he was preparing to board a flight to Mumbai and was allegedly found in possession of 61.5 grams of hashish.

The police had produced the contraband and some material objects in the case, including the undergarment, before the JSCM-II Court, as part of the legal proceedings. The police also secured his conviction in the case.

However, the acquittal and the observations made by the High Court regarding the size of the undergarment suddenly brought back memories of a casual conversation Jayamohan had with Raju outside the court when the trial began. "Raju told me they had planted a bomb in the case and that it would explode after the trial. At the time, we dismissed it as a joke by an upcoming lawyer-politician. Only later did I realise it wasn't," recalls Jayamohan.

Jayamohan, who was convinced that something was amiss, approached the Vigilance wing of the High Court seeking an inquiry into the issue. A preliminary inquiry suggested the possibility of manipulation within the court system, prompting the High Court to direct the Thiruvananthapuram District and Sessions Judge to have a case registered. Accordingly, the Vanchiyoor police registered a case in October 1994, based on a complaint filed by the court's senior official. Yet, progress remained sluggish. Jayamohan says the investigation moved "in fits and starts" and that the eventual conviction owed much to developments outside Kerala's legal machinery.

Investigators found that the underwear had been released from court custody on April 5, 1990, by Jose, then a clerk in charge of the property section at the JSCM-II Court. The garment, along with other personal belongings of Cervelli that were not crucial to the investigation, was handed over to Raju, who signed the property register acknowledging receipt. Four months later, Raju returned the underwear, stating that it had been mistakenly released.

A forensic examination later concluded that the underwear had been tampered with. The report pointed to inconsistencies in stitching. These included different threads and stitch patterns on the vertical and bottom joints, a cut-and-restitched label and signs of hand-stitching in portions that were otherwise machine-stitched. The court observed that such alterations could only have occurred during the period when the material object was in unauthorised custody.

Despite these findings, the case languished. Although the High Court ordered a reopening in 2002, it was later categorised as an unsolved case. A renewed push came only in 2005, when senior police officer T.P. Senkumar took charge as Inspector General of Police, Southern Range. The investigation was revived, and a chargesheet was filed in 2006.

A journalist's role

Even then, the wheels of justice turned slowly. After remaining with a Thiruvananthapuram court for eight years, the case was transferred to the Nedumangad court in 2014. Another eight years passed with little movement until investigative journalist Anil Emmanuel's efforts drew attention to the prolonged delays. An examination of court records revealed stark contrasts. Between 2014 and 2022, only 22 sittings were held in Raju's case at the Nedumangad JFCM-I Court. There had been frequent adjournments due to the absence of the accused. In comparison, a similarly numbered 2014 case at Nedumangad JFCM-II Court involving alleged public misbehaviour was disposed of within a year after eight sittings. "What stood out was the absence of coercive steps. While warrants were issued in the other case, not a single warrant was issued here," Emmanuel says.

He added that attempts to access court documents under the Criminal Rules of Practice were allegedly stonewalled. Only an intervention by the High Court brought such information into the public domain. However, in March 2023, the High Court quashed the proceedings based on a plea by Raju. The case was revived yet again in November 2024, when the Supreme Court overturned the High Court order and directed the Nedumangad court to complete the trial within a year.

'Systemic failure'

Former Kerala High Court judge Kamal Pasha describes the episode as "a systemic failure." "This is an unfortunate instance of justice delayed," he says. "An ordinary citizen would not have received such concessions. The case could have been disposed of years ago, considering it involved an offence against the administration of justice. It sends a wrong message to society."

Senkumar echoes the sentiment. He feels that the case should have been concluded two decades earlier. "There may have been political pressure to hush it up, especially since Raju became an MLA in 1996," he notes. He laments that the police force, too, had earned brickbats for apathy at various stages.

Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan says the case has shaken his faith in the justice system. "It took over 32 years for the truth to emerge. Such instances destroy public trust and create the perception of a separate justice system for the affluent," observes the Congress leader.

Raju, however, continues to maintain his innocence. Calling the case a political conspiracy, he points out that multiple inquiries, including one during the A.K. Antony-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government in 2002, had exonerated him. "I was given clean chit in three out of four inquiries," he asserts. The reinvestigation ordered during the Oommen Chandy government coincided with his candidature from Thiruvananthapuram West, he claims.

With Raju preparing to file an appeal before the Thiruvananthapuram District Court to seek suspension of the sentence, the case may see further legal battles. On the other hand, the prosecution has initiated steps to pursue enhanced punishment for the accused.

Political ripples

The conviction of Raju has also created political ripples in the State, especially in the coastal belt of Thiruvananthapuram, from where he won the election to become a State Minister. Raju's strong support base in the coastal belt had enabled him to overcome the challenge raised by former Health Minister and two-time Congress MLA V.S. Sivakumar in the constituency. While former Law Minister A.K. Balan and other CPI(M) leaders have played down its electoral impact, the Opposition has signalled that it will make the case a central campaign issue.

Balan asserts that the judgment would not affect the LDF's electoral prospects and could not be seen as a setback for the coalition. Several legal experts, he claims, had earlier dismissed allegations of wrongdoing against Raju. CPI(M) district secretary V. Joy says the party would uphold coalition norms by allowing the Janadhipathiya Kerala Congress to field an alternative candidate in the constituency following Raju's disqualification.

However, the Opposition has signalled an aggressive push to reclaim the seat. Satheesan says the issue would be raised to politically expose the LDF. "I had questioned Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan over Raju's appointment as a State Minister. The ruling front was confident the case would drag on indefinitely and would have no impact on either him or the coalition. The people of Thiruvananthapuram will certainly denounce such arrogance," he asserts.

Though delayed, the long arm of law has eventually caught up with the culprits, feel some observers. Yet, Raju is all set to appeal against the verdict to prove his innocence.

The long arm of law catches up with former Kerala Minister in evidence-tampering case