SC rejects Antony Raju's plea in evidence tampering case
Following the conviction, Raju, who had served as the MLA from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency, was disqualified from office.
Following the conviction, Raju, who had served as the MLA from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency, was disqualified from office.
Following the conviction, Raju, who had served as the MLA from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency, was disqualified from office.
In a major blow to former legislator Antony Raju, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected his petition seeking suspension of his conviction in the 1990 evidence-tampering case.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the plea, upholding the Kerala High Court’s order refusing to suspend his conviction.
Raju had approached the apex court challenging the High Court order in connection with an incident in 1990, when he, then a junior lawyer, was accused of tampering with material evidence in a narcotics case.
The case involved an Australian national who had been apprehended for carrying drugs concealed in his underwear. The prosecution alleged that the underwear, which constituted 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 (Criminal Conspiracy), 420 (Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property), 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence), 193 (Punishment for False Evidence) and 217 (Public Servant Disobeying Law) read with Section 34 (Acts Done by Several Persons) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.
Following the conviction, Raju, who had served as the MLA from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency, was disqualified from office. 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.
His sentence was initially suspended by the Thiruvananthapuram District and Sessions Court on February 2. However, this was set aside by the High Court on March 17, which observed that a conviction cannot be suspended merely because it would prevent a petitioner from contesting elections.
(With LiveLaw inputs)