Poll Prospects No Ground To Stay Conviction Of MPs/MLAs: Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Conviction In NDPS Underwear Tampering Case
Court says electoral disqualification is a statutory consequence of conviction, cannot justify suspension absent manifest error or strong likelihood of acquittal.
Justice C. Jayachandran, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that criminal convictions cannot be stayed merely to protect the electoral prospects of sitting MPs or MLAs, while refusing to suspend the conviction of Antony Raju in a 1990 case involving alleged tampering of an underwear, in an NDPS matter. The Court noted that disqualification from contesting elections is a statutory consequence flowing from conviction and cannot, by itself, justify suspension of conviction in the absence of any manifest illegality or a strong prima facie case for acquittal.
Kerala ex-MLA and former Minister Antony Raju, then a junior lawyer, had allegedly conspired with a court clerk to dishonestly obtain a material object, an underwear seized from an accused foreign national, from court custody, tamper with it, and return it after more than three months, ultimately aiding the acquittal of the accused. Pertinently, Raju was a defense counsel in the matter.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed, “…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 existence of such a manifest and palpable error, gross on the face of the record, in the instant facts, has already been negated”.
Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu appeared for the petitioner and V.R. Manoranjan, Director General of Prosecution appeared for the respondent.
For the facts, the MLA was convicted by a trial court for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 201, 193 and 217, read with Section 34 IPC. Upon conviction by the trial court through a judgment dated January 3, 2026, the petitioner had moved the Sessions Court challenging the judgment, seeking suspension of conviction under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which was rejected.
Now before the High Court, it was argued that the conviction suffered from serious evidentiary gaps, particularly the absence of proof regarding who actually tampered with the material object. It was further contended that unless the conviction was stayed, the petitioner would suffer irreversible consequences, including disqualification from contesting elections under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that there was sufficient material to sustain the conviction and that the power to suspend conviction is to be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases. It was also argued that the inability to contest elections cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for suspension of conviction, particularly when such disqualification is a statutory mandate.
On facts, the Court found no such glaring illegality in the trial court’s judgment. It noted that the entrustment of the material object to the petitioner and its delayed return were prima facie established, and that the trial court’s reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of explanation could not be termed fundamentally flawed at this stage.
“In the instant case, there was no investigation, whatsoever, as to who received M.O.1 underwear? Where it was altered? and at Whose instance? These are matters, which could have been probed into by the Investigating Officer, but not done for reasons best known to him. In such circumstances, reliance placed on Section 106 of the Evidence Act is illegal.
“Secondly, it was canvassed that the petitioner/A2 had explained in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that, it was not he who received M.O.1 underwear, but the uncle of the accused, by name Paul. At any rate, it is common knowledge that a junior counsel receives a material object only on behalf of the client, more so when the material object is a personal belonging of the accused. Therefore, the petitioner/A2 had no custody of M.O.1 underwear and hence not a matter within his special knowledge, as to what has been done with that underwear. Petitioner/A2 is not duty bound to explain as to what happened to M.O.1 underwear and who tampered with it”.
Dealing with the argument on electoral disqualification, the Court held that the consequences flowing from Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act are the result of a conscious legislative mandate aimed at preserving the purity of public life.
“Here, a distinction is liable to be drawn as between consequences which follows as a result of a statutory mandate; and other consequences. In the case of the former, the consequence is the very result created by the statute makers, after due deliberation, in accord with the due process; and hence it is doubtful, whether such a consequence can be propounded as constituting sufficient cause for suspension of conviction under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Secondly, this Court may have to observe that a statutory mandate in terms of Section 8(3) of the R.P. Act, has to be respected and cannot be overturned by judicial interference, except to the limited extent permissible by law and that too, for weighty and lofty reasons”, the Bench noted.
The Court also distinguished precedents where convictions were stayed to enable candidates to contest elections, noting that those cases involved peculiar facts or compelling equitable considerations not present in the instant case.
“…the first two situations hardly arises in the instant case, since on facts, the period of the elected representatives had almost expired and a fresh election is at the doorstep. Therefore, there arises no serious question of the petitioner/A2 being deprived of his right to represent the constituency, or for that matter, the constituency being deprived of its representation. What is more significant to be considered is the interdiction to contest future elections as per Section 8(3) of the R.P. Act, 1951”, it noted.
Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the Court dismissed the plea and refused to suspend the conviction, reiterating that political or electoral consequences alone cannot override the operation of a valid criminal conviction.
Cause Title: Antony Raju v. State Of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:22892]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Aaron Zacharias Benny, M. Revikrishnan, P.M. Rafiq, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Sruthy N. Bhat, Sruthy K.K, K. Aravind Menon, Sona Maria Biju, P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Advocates.
Respondent: V.R. Manoranjan, Director General of Prosecution, P. Narayanan, Special Government Pleader D.G.P. and Additional Public Prosecutor, Sajju S., Senior Government Pleader, Advocates.