'There Could Be Many Rahuls, Lalus': SC Dismisses PIL To Bar Namesake Candidates From Elections
‘there could be many rahuls, lalus’: sc dismisses pil to bar namesake candidates from elections
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to admit a PIL which sought a ban on “namesakes” (same name) of candidates coming into the election fray. The court said that a person cannot be stopped from contesting elections just because he shares his name with a renowned politician.
The top court, while rejecting the plea asked, “If somebody else’s name is also Rahul Gandhi, Lalu Prasad Yadav ..if their parents chose to name like that, can we stop them from contesting elections?”
“If their parents give them a similar name, can we stop them from? Tell us,” asked the SC bench led by Justice BR Gavai.
The PIL, filed by a Kerala resident Sabu Stephen and argued by SC advocate VK Biju, said it’s a long-standing tactic of political opponents who foresee close competitions sponsoring and deliberately fielding candidates with similar names to their main rivals as fake candidates. Some instances show that votes received by the dummy name-sake candidates surpassed the margin of victory.
The petitioner sought directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to scrutinise the background of namesake candidates and prevent them from contesting if they have been deliberately fielded by the opponents.
Candidates sponsoring namesakes of strongest rival candidate to be in the election fray to cut their votes be declared an electoral offence, the PIL had said.
Biju in his petition cited three instances from his home state Kerala. One Satheeshan Pacheni (Cong) lost by 1,820 votes while his namesake candidate polled 5,478 votes in 2009. That year, P A Mohd Riyas(CPIM) lost by 833 votes from Kozhikode, while four candidates with the name ‘Riyas’ cumulatively garnered 6,371 votes.
In 2016, BJP state president K Surendran lost by 89 votes from Manjeswaram, where his namesake polled 467 votes.
In the ongoing general elections, former Tamil Nadu CM O Panneerselvam faces four more O Panneerselvams, the petitioner said.
“The petitioner is not claiming that all independent candidates are fake or that they have no right to contest. But EC must have an effective mechanism to weed out the phantoms set up to fraudulently wean away votes from a genuine candidate,” PIL said.
Argued Biju said that this Hon’ble Court repeatedly and consistently held it is the duty of the State to ensure that the candidates in the elections shall not secure votes either by way of an undue influence, fraud, communal propaganda, bribery or any other types of corrupt practices, as specified in the RP Act 1951. It is pertinent to note that from 1952 onwards till today this Hon’ble Court has issued appropriate directions to the Election Commission of India, by protecting the democratic rights of citizens of country and by protecting the “true spirit” of the citizens, in electing their candidates as per the will of the people by conducting the election in free and fair manner without any undue influence.
“However the wrong practice of fielding the “namesake” “dupe” “double” candidates is an old trick to create ‘confusion’ in the minds of voters. Such a practice to be curtailed, on war-footing, since “each and every vote” has its power to decide a candidate’s future and the “true spirit” of the citizens. Therefore, the ‘confusion’ need to be replaced with ‘clarity’ is the need of the hour, which can be achieved by way of proper amendment, modifications in the Representation of People Act-1951 and Conduct of Elections Rules-1961,” said the PIL.