Three decades ago, in January 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received a vital information from the Australian Interpol National Central Bureau. The Canberra-based agency shared with its Indian counterpart information about alleged irregularities in a case being tried in a Thiruvananthapuram-based court.
The input pertained to alleged misconduct committed at the behest of an Australian, Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, who was caught at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on April 4, 1990, with narcotics stashed in two pockets within his undergarments.
The Australian agency said some of Cervelli’s family members had traveled to India after his arrest and allegedly bribed a court official, who allegedly replaced the underwear worn by Cervelli at the time of his arrest with a shorter pair.
A trial court in Thiruvananthapuram had sentenced Serveli to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, but he secured acquittal from the High Court, which found that the underwear produced as evidence was too small to fit the accused, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version. Serveli was represented in the trial court by a woman lawyer and his junior, Antony Raju. After his acquittal, Cervelli returned to Australia, where he was later jailed on a murder charge. The Australian agency obtained information from one of Cervelli’s associates in the murder case.
The intelligence input rekindled the hopes of KK Jeyamohan, circle inspector of Poonthura police station, who produced the seized contraband, including undergarments, before the Thiruvananthapuram Judicial Second Class Magistrate-II court. Jeyamohan was waiting for the opportunity to reopen the case and expose the gross miscarriage of justice committed through criminal misconduct.
Thirty years after the Australian agency shared all the crucial intelligence, a trial court in Nedumangad convicted Antony Raju, who later in politics became the state transport minister, for tampering with physical evidence. The court found Raju and former JSCM-II court clerk KS Jose 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 sentence to give him an opportunity to challenge the conviction in a higher court.
The judicial finding led to Raju’s automatic disqualification 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. This was probably the first time that an MLA of the Kerala Assembly was disqualified under this provision after being convicted of an offense relating to the administration of justice.
The case, which has taken on significance far beyond the fate of one man, was marked by long silences, revived investigations, and persistent questions about the pace and priorities of the criminal justice system.
series of events
At the heart of the case is an extraordinary series of events leading to Seravelli’s arrest at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport in 1990. Cervelli was stopped when he was preparing to board a flight to Mumbai and was allegedly found with 61.5 grams of hashish.
The police, as part of the legal proceedings, had produced contraband and some physical objects, including undergarments, in the case before the JSCM-II court. The police also ensured his punishment in the case.
However, the comments made by the High Court regarding the acquittal and the size of the undergarment suddenly brought back memories of the informal conversation Jeyamohan had with Raju outside the court when the trial began. Jayamohan recalls, “Raju told me that he had planted a bomb in the case and it would explode after the trial. At the time, we dismissed it as a joke by an up-and-coming lawyer-politician. Later I realized it was not so.”
Jeyamohan, who was convinced that something was wrong, approached the Vigilance Branch of the High Court, demanding an investigation into the issue. Preliminary investigation suggested the possibility of manipulation within the court system, following which the High Court directed the Thiruvananthapuram District and Sessions Judge to register the case. Accordingly, based on a complaint filed by a senior court official, the Vanchiyur police registered a case in October 1994. Still, progress remained slow. Jeyamohan says the investigation proceeded smoothly and the eventual conviction was due to developments outside Kerala’s legal machinery.
The investigators found that the underwear had been released from the court’s custody on April 5, 1990 by Jose, who was then clerk in charge of the property section in the JSCM-II court. The garment, along with other personal belongings of Serveli which were not important to the investigation, were handed over to Raju, who signed the property register acknowledging the receipt. Four months later, Raju returned the underwear saying that it had been left by mistake.
Forensic investigation later concluded that the underwear had been tampered with. The report points out discrepancies in stitching. These included different threads and stitching patterns on the vertical and bottom joints, a cut-and-sew label, and indications of hand-stitching in parts that were otherwise machine-stitched. The court said that such alterations could take place only during the period when the physical object was in unauthorized custody.
Despite these findings, the case remained pending. Although the High Court ordered its reopening in 2002, it was later classified as an unresolved case. A new impetus came in 2005, when senior police officer TP Senkumar took charge as Inspector General of Police, Southern Range. The investigation was restarted and a charge sheet was filed in 2006.
role of a journalist
Yet the wheel of justice turned slowly. After being in the Thiruvananthapuram court for eight years, the case was transferred to the Nedumangad court in 2014. The next eight years passed with little movement until the efforts of investigative journalist Anil Emmanuel drew attention to the long delay. An examination of court records revealed apparent contradictions. Between 2014 and 2022, only 22 sittings were held in Raju’s case in the Nedumangad JFCM-I court. There were repeated adjournments due to the absence of the accused. In comparison, a similar 2014 case in the Nedumangad JFCM-II court involving alleged public misbehavior was disposed of within a year after eight sittings. “What stood out was the lack of coercive measures. While warrants were issued in the other case, not a single warrant was issued here,” says Emmanuel.
He said efforts to access court documents were allegedly obstructed under criminal practice rules. Only with the intervention of the High Court did such information come into the public domain. However, in March 2023, the High Court quashed the proceedings based on Raju’s petition. The case was revived 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 has described the episode as “a systemic failure”. “This is an unfortunate example of delayed justice,” he says. “An ordinary citizen does not get such concessions. This case could have been disposed of years ago as an offense against the administration of justice. This sends a wrong message to the society.”
Senkumar also agrees with this sentiment. He believes that this matter should have been settled two decades ago. “There might have been political pressure to suppress it, especially since Raju became an MLA in 1996,” he said, lamenting that the police force has also faced criticism for apathy at various stages.
Opposition leader VD Satheesan says the case has shaken his faith in the justice system. The Congress leader says, “It took 32 years for the truth to come out. Such instances destroy public trust and create the perception of a separate justice system for the rich.”
However, Raju maintains his innocence. Terming the case a political conspiracy, he said several investigations, including one conducted during the AK Antony-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government in 2002, had acquitted him. “I was given a clean chit in three out of four investigations,” he claimed. He claimed that the re-investigation ordered during the Oommen Chandy government coincided with his candidature from Thiruvananthapuram West.
With Raju preparing to file an appeal before the Thiruvananthapuram District Court to suspend the sentence, the case may see further legal battles. On the other hand, the prosecution has taken steps to pursue enhanced punishment for the accused.
political waves
Raju’s conviction has also created a political stir in the state, especially in the coastal region of Thiruvananthapuram, from where he won the election to become the state minister. Raju’s strong support base in the coastal region enabled him to overcome the challenge raised by former health minister and two-time Congress MLA VS Shivakumar in the constituency. While former law minister AK Balan and other CPI(M) leaders have downplayed its electoral impact, the opposition has indicated that it will make the case a central campaign issue.
Balan claims that the decision will not have any impact on LDF’s electoral prospects and cannot be seen as a setback for the alliance. He claims that many legal experts had earlier rejected allegations of wrongdoing against Raju. CPI(M) district secretary V. Joy says the party will maintain alliance norms by allowing the Janadhipathiya Kerala Congress to field an alternative candidate in the constituency after Raju’s disqualification.
However, the opposition has signaled an aggressive effort to recapture the seat. Satheesan says this issue will be raised to expose LDF politically. He said, “I had questioned Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on the appointment of Raju as Minister of State. The ruling front was confident that the matter would go on indefinitely and there would be no impact on them or the alliance. The people of Thiruvananthapuram will definitely condemn such arrogance.”
Some observers believe that despite the delay, the long arm of the law has finally caught the culprits. Nevertheless, Raju is fully prepared to appeal against the verdict to prove his innocence.
