Supreme Court Dismisses Former Kerala Minister Antony Raju's Plea To Suspend Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former Kerala minister Antony Raju's petition seeking suspension of his conviction in the evidence tampering case dating back to 1990.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the plea challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which had earlier refused to suspend his conviction.

The case relates to an incident in 1990, when Raju, then a junior lawyer, was accused of tampering with material evidence in a narcotics case involving an Australian national who had been apprehended for carrying drugs concealed in his underwear. The prosecution alleged that the underwear, which formed crucial material evidence, had been altered.

In January 2026, after a prolonged prosecution marked by significant delays and several developments over the years, a trial court convicted Raju of offences under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193 and 217 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.

Following the conviction, Raju incurred disqualification as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The conviction also rendered him ineligible to contest the 2026 Assembly elections.

Raju had sought suspension of his conviction primarily to remove the statutory disqualification and enable him to participate in electoral politics. However, the trial court declined to grant such relief, and the High Court subsequently upheld that decision. However, his sentence was suspended by the Sessions Court.

The High Court observed that conviction cannot be suspended merely on the ground that it will prevent the petitioner from contesting elections.

"It is neither in the interest of law, nor in public interest to stay/suspend a conviction merely for the reason that the accused is an M.L.A or an M.P and that his future chances of contesting election is in jeopardy. Such jeopardy is nothing but a statutory legal consequence, emanating from the judgment of conviction, duly entered into by a competent Court, in accord with the due process of law. Therefore, in the absence of a serious infirmity or a fundamental flaw, probabilising preponderently a possible interference with the judgment, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused, the judgment of conviction is not liable to be stayed/suspended," the High Court had said.

Case : Antony Raju v. State of Kerala. SLP(Crl) 7113/2026