Today(on 3rd May),Supreme Court denies PIL addressing namesake candidates, stressing fairness in elections regardless of name similarities, emphasizing judicial commitment to electoral integrity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 3rd May), the Supreme Court rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) requesting the Election Commission of India (ECI) to handle the problem of namesake, imposter, and duplicate candidates in elections. Justices BR Gavai, SC Sharma, and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that individuals shouldn’t be disqualified from running in elections simply because their names are similar to other candidates’.
The Court asserted-
“It’s evident how this case will unfold. If parents give their children similar names, it’s unreasonable to bar them from running, as seen with examples like Rahul Gandhi and Lalu Prasad Yadav.”
The petitioner’s counsel subsequently withdrew the plea in light of the Court’s remarks.
Advocate VK Biju, representing petitioner Sabu Steephen, filed a PIL addressing the persistent issue of namesake, duplicate, or double candidates in elections, aimed at creating voter confusion. The petitioner urged for measures to combat this practice, advocating for amendments to the Representation of the People Act and Conduct of Elections Rules to ensure clarity in the electoral process.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Relieves Charity Commissioner Staff from Election Duty Following ECI Withdrawal
As per the petition, the strategy of nominating namesake contenders is not only harmful but also corrupt. It asserted that such candidates often lack the requisite understanding of India’s political and administrative structures.
Additionally, the petition alleged that opposing parties offer backing to these candidates, including financial aid, resources, and incentives like alcohol. These actions, according to the petition, constitute corrupt practices under the RP Act 1951, leading to leaders from different national and state parties falling prey to such tactics, ultimately subverting the people’s mandate.
In response to these issues, the petition proposed various directives to the ECI. Firstly, it urged for the publication of a candidate list featuring serial numbers and colored photographs to enhance clarity and identification. Moreover, it advocated for the introduction of a compulsory ‘meet the candidates’ initiative, requiring candidates’ participation, with non-compliance leading to disqualification.
Although the Supreme Court rejected the PIL, the issue of namesake candidates in elections persists as a cause for concern. The Court’s stance against barring individuals from contesting based on their names raises concerns about potential voter confusion. However, the onus to tackle this issue now lies with the legislature, which must consider appropriate amendments to electoral laws.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues Notice to ECI on PIL Addressing Duplicate Entries in Electoral Rolls
CASE TITLE:
Sabu Steephen v. Election Commission of India.
