Thiruvananthapuram: The political future of former Kerala minister and ruling-front MLA Antony Raju is uncertain after a court found him guilty in an evidence-tampering case. With the sentencing order yet to be issued, questions have arisen over whether he can contest the Kerala Assembly election scheduled for April 2026.

The length of the sentence will be crucial in deciding his eligibility to remain an MLA and contest future elections.

2026 Assembly election in question

Legal experts say the Representation of the People Act, 1951, could seriously affect Antony Raju’s political prospects. With only a few months left in the term of the present Assembly, the punishment awarded by the court will play a key role.

Sentence beyond two years can lead to disqualification

If Antony Raju is sentenced to more than two years for the offences proved against him, he will lose his MLA post. He will also be barred from contesting elections for six years. The charges in the case allow for a maximum punishment of up to 10 years.

Appeal may not bring quick relief

Even if Antony Raju moves a higher court against the sentence, it may not immediately help him politically. Legal experts point out that higher courts usually stay only the sentence, not the conviction, which means disqualification can still apply.

The 1990 airport case

The case goes back to April 4, 1990, when an Australian national was arrested at Thiruvananthapuram airport in a narcotics case. Antony Raju, who was a practising lawyer at the time, is accused of tampering with the seized underwear, the main piece of evidence, to help the accused avoid conviction. The alleged replacement of the underwear led to the accused being acquitted.

The court found Antony Raju guilty under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 193 (fabricating false evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 34 (criminal acts done by several people with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is the second accused in the case, while court clerk Jose is the first accused. The court ruled that both conspired to remove and tamper with key evidence, ensuring the case before the High Court was decided in favour of the accused.