The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed former Kerala minister Antony Raju’s petition searching for suspension of his conviction within the proof tampering case relationship again to 1990.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the plea difficult the Kerala High Court’s judgment which had earlier refused to droop his conviction.
The case pertains to an incident in 1990, when Raju, then a junior lawyer, was accused of tampering with materials proof in a narcotics case involving an Australian nationwide who had been apprehended for carrying medicine hid in his underwear. The prosecution alleged that the underwear, which shaped essential materials proof, had been altered.
In January 2026, after a protracted prosecution marked by important delays and several other developments through the years, a trial courtroom convicted Raju of offences underneath Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193 and 217 learn with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment.
Following the conviction, Raju incurred disqualification as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The conviction additionally rendered him ineligible to contest the 2026 Assembly elections.
Raju had sought suspension of his conviction primarily to take away the statutory disqualification and allow him to take part in electoral politics. However, the trial courtroom declined to grant such aid, and the High Court subsequently upheld that call. However, his sentence was suspended by the Sessions Court.
The High Court noticed that conviction can’t be suspended merely on the bottom that it’ll stop 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 stated.
Case : Antony Raju v. State of Kerala. SLP(Crl) 7113/2026
