Maharashtra polls: Candidates sweat over Independents with identical names
Pune (PTI): As major political parties focus on resolving differences internally and among allies ahead of the November 20 assembly elections, candidates in some constituencies have to deal with a different challenge – Independents with identical names.
In the Tasgaon-Kavathe Mahakal constituency in Sangli district, where Rohit Raosaheb Patil, the son of late NCP leader and former home minister R R Patil, is contesting against Ajit Pawar-led NCP's Sanjay Kaka Patil, three more candidates with similar names as his are also in the fray.
The NCP (SP) has been stumped by Rohit Ravsaheb Patil, Rohit Rajgonda Patil, and Rohit Rajendra Patil, who are contesting as Independent candidates.
Parties say identical names can confuse voters and cost them dearly if the victory margin is thin.
In Pune, Bapusaheb Tukaram Pathare, the NCP (SP) candidate from the Vadgaon Sheri assembly seat, has sought the disqualification of an Independent candidate with an identical name alleging that he has made incomplete disclosures.
Pathare is pitted against MLA Sunil Tingre of Ajit Pawar-led NCP for the November 20 polls.
One Bapu Baban Pathare, a resident of Ahilyanagari district, has filed his nomination as an Independent candidate. The election officials, however, have accepted his candidature.
In the Parvati constituency in Pune, where NCP (SP) leader Ashwini Nitin Kadam is contesting against BJP MLA Madhuri Misal, two more Independent candidates with similar names have filed their nominations.
One of them is his namesake ‘Ashwini Nitin Kadam'. The other is Ashwini Vijay Kadam.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Madras HC rules spousal privacy as a fundamental right, disallows evidence obtained through snooping
Chennai: In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court emphasized the protection of spousal privacy as a fundamental right, ruling that evidence obtained by one spouse snooping on the other is inadmissible in court. This ruling came as Justice G.R. Swaminathan overturned a lower court's decision that had allowed a husband to submit his wife's call records in a marital dispute case.
The court made it clear that privacy, as a constitutionally guaranteed right, includes the privacy of married individuals from each other, rejecting the notion that marital misconduct permits invasion of personal privacy. "Law cannot proceed on the premise that marital misconduct is the norm. Privacy as a fundamental right includes spousal privacy, and evidence obtained by invading this right is inadmissible," stated the court.
The case originated in Paramakudi Subordinate Court, where the husband submitted the wife's call data as evidence to support claims of adultery, cruelty, and desertion. He had obtained these records without her consent, an act the High Court deemed a violation of privacy. Additionally, the call records were not accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, making them procedurally inadmissible.
Justice Swaminathan noted that allowing such evidence would open doors to spouses spying on each other, damaging the foundational trust in marital relationships. “Trust forms the bedrock of matrimonial relationships. The spouses must have implicit and total faith in each other. Snooping destroys the fabric of marital life,” he stated.
The High Court further advised that allegations of misconduct could be pursued through authorized methods, such as interrogatories or affidavits, cautioning that the court must not assume marital misconduct as a norm justifying privacy breaches.
