'Namesakes' cause trouble for UDF candidates in Palakkad, Chelakkara Assembly seats
Palakkad (Kerala) (PTI): The namesakes of prominent candidates contesting as independents have impacted election outcomes in the past and the strategy appears to be making a comeback in the assembly bypolls in Palakkad and Chelakkara constituencies.
As the three major political fronts -- LDF, UDF and NDA -- enter the second phase campaigns, three individuals with names resembling those of the Congress-led UDF candidates have entered the race as independents in the two assembly seats.
In the Palakkad constituency, where a triangular contest is unfolding, two independent candidates -- Rahul Manalazhi and Rahul R Vadakanthara -- are posing a challenge for the UDF, which has fielded Youth Congress state president Rahul Mamkootathil.
The grand old party alleged that these namesake candidates are backed by the CPI(M) and the BJP to confuse voters.
"Our initial inquiries indicate that one candidate is a CPI(M) worker while the other is supported by the BJP. However, such tactics would not impact the UDF's prospects in any way," a local Congress leader involved in Mamkootathil's campaign told PTI on Thursday.
In Chelakkara, the candidacy of 46-year-old Haridasan, who is reportedly a CITU worker, has sparked a row with the resemblance of his name to that of UDF candidate and former MP Ramya Haridas.
His photo had also appeared on a flex board placed in the constituency seeking votes for CPI(M) candidate U R Pradeep.
Following the row, the board was removed, according to Congress workers.
The CPI(M) has not officially commented on the matter.
With the withdrawal of nominations over on Wednesday (October 30), a total of 10 candidates, including Mamkootathil, LDF-independent Dr P Sarin, and BJP leader C Krishnakumar, are in the fray for the Palakkad seat.
The two namesakes of the Congress candidate -- 33-year-old Rahul Manalazhi and 28-year-old Rahul R Vadakanthara -- were allocated the coconut farm and air conditioner poll symbols, respectively.
The bypoll for the seat was necessitated by the election of sitting MLA and Congress leader Shafi Parambil to the Lok Sabha from the Vadakara constituency in the recent parliamentary polls.
The Congress-led UDF had faced a jolt after Sarin, who was the former digital media cell convener of the KPCC, quit the grand old party in protest against its decision to field Mamkootathil as the party candidate in the constituency.
He later joined the CPI(M)-led alliance, which made him an independent candidate and pitted him against Mamkootathil.
In Chelakkara, responding to the presence of her namesake, Haridas told reporters that the voters in the constituency know the UDF candidate and her symbol very well.
The by-election in Chelakkara has been necessitated by the vacating of the seat by CPI(M)'s K Radhakrishnan, who was elected to the Lok Sabha from the Alathur constituency, defeating sitting MP Ramya Haridas.
To retain the seat, CPI(M) has fielded former MLA U R Pradeep, while K Balakrishnan is the BJP candidate.
According to political experts, one of the biggest political defeats in Kerala's electoral history occurred in 2004 when former KPCC president V M Sudheeran lost in the Alappuzha Lok Sabha constituency.
He was defeated by CPM-backed independent candidate K S Manoj by just 1,009 votes, largely due to the presence of his namesake, V S Sudheeran, who garnered 8,332 votes, the experts say.
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.
