Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL seeking measures to check ‘namesake’ candidates contesting elections

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, May 3

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking a direction to the Election Commission (ECI) to urgently put in place an effective mechanism to deal with the issue of “namesake”, imposter and duplicate candidates contesting polls.

“You know what is the fate of the case… 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?” a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai told the counsel for petitioner Sabu Steephen.

As the Bench was not inclined to entertain the PIL, the petitioner’s counsel chose to withdraw it and accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

Citing the example of former Tamil Nadu CM and ex-AIADMK leader O Paneerselvam, the petitioner said there were four other candidates with the same name in the same parliamentary constituency in Phase-1 of the Lok Sabha polls. All five candidates with O Paneerselvam name were independent candidates. He wanted ECI to publish the candidates’ list with serial number and coloured photographs.

“They are getting “sponsorships” from rival parties, which include money, materials and other offers including liquor and the same squarely covered the corrupt practices as indicated in the Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, many leaders from all the national and state parties and their leaders are the victims of such practices and ultimately the same is adversely affecting the will of the people,” the petitioner submitted.

Steephen wanted the “unhealthy and corrupted democratic practice” to be checked by modifications in the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

Highlighting that the ‘wrong practice’ of fielding the ‘namesake’ ‘dupe’ ‘double’ candidates was an old trick to create ‘confusion’ in the minds of voters, Steephen submitted that: “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’ needed 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.”