Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Bar Namesake Candidates From Elections

The Supreme Court (on May 03) dismissed as withdrawn a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to bar namesake/duplicate candidates who deliberately contest elections as independent candidates to ruin the chances of other candidates.The petitioner sought directions to the Election Commission of India to scrutinise the background of namesake candidates and prevent them from contesting if they have been deliberately fielded by the opponents. The petition was placed before a three-judge Bench of Justice B.R Gavai, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Sandeep Mehta. As soon as the matter was called out for hearing, Justice Gavai remarked “You know what is the fate of the case.” He went on to say, “If someone's parents have given a similar name, can it come in the way of contesting elections? If somebody is born as Rahul Gandhi or if somebody is born as Lalu Prasad Yadav, how will they be prevented from contesting elections? Wouldn't it affect their rights?” However, the counsel tried convincing the Bench by arguing that he had tested this issue after going through the two reports of the Election Commission. To strengthen his contention, he also relied upon Rule 22(3) of the Conduct of Elections Rules1961. As per the rule-“If two or more candidates bear the same name, they shall be distinguished by the addition of their occupation or residence or in some other manner. That as per Rule 30(3) If two or more candidates bear the same name, they shall be distinguished by the addition of their occupation or residence or in some other manner.” However, since the Bench was not convinced to entertain the petition, the Counsel requested to withdraw his petition. The Court allowed the same, and thus, it was dismissed as withdrawn. The petition filed by Sabu Steephen, through Advocate V K Biju, proposed to have a mechanism in order assess the background of namesake candidates and their campaigns after they file their nominations. Imperatively, the petitioner has also cited an instance where “O. Paneerselvam,” former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and ex-AIADMK leader, was found competing against four other candidates with the same name in the same Parliamentary Constituency, where Phase-1 polling concluded last month. Notably, all five O. Paneerselvam are independent candidates. While the petitioner said that he was not arguing that all the independent candidates are fake or not saying that those candidates do not have the right to contest, an effective scrutiny and appropriate mechanism is sought to avoid the namesake candidates. The petition has also highlighted how this practice “is an old trick” and is used to create “confusion” in the minds of voters. Noting that it is an “unhealthy and corrupted democratic practice” and should be curtailed, the petitioner has sought for modifications in the Representation of People Act-1951 and Conduct of Elections Rules-1961. “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.,” the plea read. Case Details: SABU STEEPHEN v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA., W.P.(C) No. 275/2024 PIL-W

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL To Bar Namesake Candidates From Elections

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags