Supreme Court’s Remark On Election Candidates Named Rahul Gandhi Or Lalu Yadav Sparks Debate
Supreme Court’s Remark on Election Candidates Named Rahul Gandhi or Lalu Yadav Sparks Debate.
Supreme Court’s Remark: Learn why the Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a ban on candidates named Rahul Gandhi or Lalu Yadav in elections.
Get insights into the arguments presented and the court’s stance on the issue.
Elections cannot be stopped if Rahul Gandhi or Lalu Yadav are named, why did the Supreme Court make this comment?
Parents cannot be stopped from naming their children Rahul Gandhi or Lalu Yadav.
Making this comment on Friday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a PIL. A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court demanding a ban on candidates with similar names.
Through this petition, it was requested that the Supreme Court direct the Election Commission to ban candidates with the name Hum.
However, the court refused to hear the matter commenting that we cannot stop parents from naming their children Rahul Gandhi or Lalu Yadav.
Supreme Court’s Remark: What argument did the petitioner give?
According to the report, a person named Sabu Stephen filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court.
The petitioner argued that dummy candidates sharing names with political personalities often enter the electoral fray intending to confuse the voters, thus potentially influencing the results.
In the petition, the petitioner highlighted instances where key leaders lost elections by narrow margins due to such confusion.
What did the court say?
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, SC Sharma, and Sandeep Mehta said that people cannot be barred from contesting elections merely because their parents have given them similar names.
Supreme Court: ‘Non-bailable warrant cannot be issued regularly’, what did the Supreme Court say on the heinous crime?
The Supreme Court has said that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued regularly unless the accused is accused of a heinous crime and there is a possibility of him evading the legal process or tampering/destroying the evidence.
What did the bench say?
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, in its recent judgment, said that there are no comprehensive guidelines for issuing non-bailable warrants.
But, the apex court has on several occasions said that non-bailable warrants should not be issued unless the accused has been accused of a heinous crime.
This is an established principle of law: Court.
The bench said that it is a settled principle of law that non-bailable warrants cannot be issued routinely.
The liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless it is necessary to do so in the larger interest of the public and the State.
