The Supreme Court has issued an interim order staying fresh proceedings against Kerala Transport Minister Antony Raju in connection with a 1990 drugs case. The case revolves around alleged tampering of evidence, specifically an underwear worn by an Australian national, seized during the drug seizure case.

The Background:

The controversy dates back to 1990 when Antony Raju was a junior lawyer representing the Australian accused in the drug seizure case. The accused was found in possession of charas hidden in his underwear. After the trial, the sessions court convicted him under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. However, the Kerala High Court later acquitted the accused on the grounds that the underwear did not fit him, raising the possibility of evidence tampering.

Vigilance Inquiry and FIR:

Following the High Court's acquittal, an inquiry was ordered to investigate the possibility of evidence tampering. Subsequently, in 1994, an FIR was registered against Antony Raju and a court staff, accusing them of offenses under sections 120B, 420, 201, 193, and 217 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the trial in the case remained pending for several years.

High Court Order:

On March 10, 2023, a single judge of the Kerala High Court quashed the criminal case against Minister Antony Raju on a technicality. The court cited Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, stating that cognizance cannot be taken on a police chargesheet in a case related to fabrication of evidence in a court proceeding. Despite this, the High Court recognized the seriousness of the offense, which interferes with the administration of justice. The High Court directed the Registry of the Court to pursue the complaint under relevant provisions of the CrPC.

Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court:

Challenging the High Court's order, a third party named MR Ajayan approached the Supreme Court. Minister Antony Raju also filed a petition challenging the High Court order, particularly the part that allowed fresh proceedings to be initiated against him. Both petitions were listed before a bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar.

Supreme Court's Interim Order:

During the hearing, Senior Advocate R Basant, representing Minister Raju, questioned the locus standi of MR Ajayan in filing the Special Leave Petition. He argued that only the accused, State, or a defacto complainant can approach the Court. On the other hand, Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, appearing for Ajayan, defended his right to intervene in the case. The bench, while agreeing to issue notice on both petitions, reserved the right for Minister Raju to question MR Ajayan's locus standi.

The Supreme Court also observed that, pending further consideration, no further proceedings should be initiated in accordance with the High Court's order. The matter is set to be heard after six weeks.

This case has garnered significant attention due to the serious nature of the allegations and the involvement of a prominent political figure. As the legal battle continues, the nation awaits the Supreme Court's final verdict on the matter.