The Kerala High Court on Tuesday sought the State's response to a plea by former Kerala Minister Antony Raju seeking the suspension of his conviction in the underwear evidence tampering case until his appeal challenging the validity of the conviction is decided by a session court [Antony Raju v. State of Kerala].

Justice CS Dias issued notice to the State today and posted the case on March 3 for further consideration.

Raju was convicted on January 3, 2026, by the Nedumangadu Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I in an evidence tampering case dating back more than three decades.

The trial court found him guilty under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 193 (fabricating false evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

Raju has already moved an appeal before a sessions court challenging the magistrate court's verdict finding him guilty in the case.

The sessions court is yet to decide on the appeal. It declined to suspend Raju's conviction pending appeal, even though it suspended his jail sentence.

The sessions court's refusal to suspend Raju's conviction meant that he continued to be disqualified from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA).

Raju has, therefore, now moved the High Court seeking the suspension of his conviction as well till his appeal is decided, effectively also seeking the restoration of his MLA status until then.

In his plea before the High Court, Raju has argued that the sessions court was wrong in holding that no irreparable harm would be caused if his conviction was not stayed.

The plea pointed out that Raju is currently a sitting MLA and plans to contest the upcoming State assembly elections. The refusal to suspend his conviction could directly affect his political future, his plea added.

"The finding of the learned Judge that there are absolutely no irreparable consequences in refusing the stay is contrary to the facts and settled law. The Petitioner is a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly whose term is nearly complete and who intends to contest the upcoming general election, which is now at the doorstep. Barring a candidate from contesting an election based on a conviction that is currently under appeal constitutes an irreversible injury that cannot be compensated in monetary terms," said the petition.

Raju is the leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party, which is part of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) coalition in Kerala.

The petition noted that under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, any conviction that carries a sentence of not less than two years results in immediate disqualification from contesting elections.

It argued that unless Raju's conviction itself is suspended, this statutory disqualification will continue to apply even while his appeal is pending.

This would affect both his current tenure and his ability to seek re-election.

The plea further submitted that the appellate court did not properly apply the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding suspension of conviction.

The petition relies on the principle that although suspension of conviction is to be exercised sparingly, courts have recognised that such power may be invoked where failure to do so would result in irreversible injustice.

The petition says that the sessions court did not fully consider what would happen if the conviction remains in place while the appeal is still pending.

It also questioned how the trial court assessed the evidence, highlighting what it described as inconsistencies in witness testimony, and disputes the findings that there was evidence tampering.

It held that the issues raised in the appeal require detailed examination and that maintaining the conviction at this stage would render the appeal itself ineffective if the disqualification operates in the interim.

The matter is tied to another case from 1990, when an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, was arrested at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly smuggling 61.5 grams of charas concealed in his underwear.

Cervelli was initially convicted by a trial court. However, on appeal, the High Court of Kerala noted that the underwear produced as material evidence was smaller than the size recorded at the time of seizure. Taking note of this discrepancy, the Court acquitted Cervelli.

Subsequent information received from the Australian National Central Bureau indicated that the underwear produced as evidence in the Cervelli case may have been altered while it was in court custody.

A criminal case was registered in 1994 against Raju, who was then a practising lawyer and had represented Cervelli, and against a court clerk KJ Jose. A charge sheet was filed in 2006.

The proceedings were later revived following orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the trial resumed, culminating in Raju's recent conviction for tampering with evidence in the Cervelli case.