The Madras High Court has rejected an election petition challenging the victory of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R. Rajendran from the Salem North Assembly constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that involving children in political campaigning to influence their parents’ voting choices was in bad taste. However, the Court held that such conduct, by itself, could not be treated as “undue influence” under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, so as to invalidate an election.
Background Of The Case
The election petition was filed by K. Sivakumar, the DMK candidate who contested against Rajendran in the Salem North constituency.
Rajendran won the election by a margin of 14,034 votes, securing 85,710 votes against Sivakumar’s 71,676 votes. Sivakumar challenged the election, alleging that children had been used in TVK’s campaign in violation of Election Commission directions.
The petition also referred to a speech delivered by TVK president Joseph Vijay on April 21, 2026. It was alleged that Vijay encouraged children to persuade their parents and family members to vote for TVK.
The petitioner relied on social media videos in which children were allegedly shown putting pressure on family members to vote for the party.
Allegation Of Undue Influence
Sivakumar argued that the use of children to influence parents and other family members amounted to undue influence and constituted a ground for setting aside the election.
The petitioner also relied upon Election Commission guidelines prohibiting the use of children in election-related campaigning.
The Court, however, examined whether the alleged conduct satisfied the legal requirements for declaring an election void under the Representation of the People Act.
Court Examines Meaning Of Undue Influence
The High Court drew a distinction between ordinary persuasion and legally recognised undue influence.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that familial relationships and emotional bonds can undoubtedly influence the choices made by individuals. However, such emotional persuasion cannot automatically be equated with interference that overpowers the free will of an elector.
The Court held that even if the allegations regarding the social media videos were accepted at face value, they did not establish the kind of interference with the voter’s free choice contemplated by the election law.
The Court also observed that adults themselves were responsible for involving children in such videos and making them participate in political messaging.
Court Criticises Use Of Children In Campaigning
While rejecting the election challenge, the Court did not approve of the practice.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy strongly criticised the use of young children in political campaigning and the making of social media reels involving them for political purposes.
The Court observed that involving children in such activities was in bad taste and reflected poorly on the adults who encouraged their participation.
At the same time, the Court noted that the broader question of whether the use of children in political campaigns should be prohibited, or whether such conduct should become a statutory ground for invalidating an election, was a matter for Parliament to consider.
Violation Of Election Commission Guidelines Not Enough
The Court also considered the allegation that the campaign violated Election Commission directions concerning the involvement of children in election-related activities.
The High Court held that even assuming such directions had been violated, the violation could not by itself constitute an independent ground for declaring the election void under the Representation of the People Act.
An election can be set aside only on grounds recognised by the statute. Therefore, the alleged violation had to satisfy the specific legal requirements applicable to an election petition.
Vijay’s Speech Could Not Automatically Be Attributed To Candidate
The petitioner had also relied on the speech of TVK president Joseph Vijay.
The High Court held that the speech could not automatically be attributed to the returned candidate merely because Vijay was the leader of the political party.
For such conduct to constitute a corrupt practice attributable to the returned candidate, the necessary statutory connection between the conduct and the candidate or his election agent had to be established.
The Court found that the allegations did not satisfy that requirement.
Election Petition Rejected
After considering the allegations, the High Court concluded that the petition did not disclose a legally sustainable ground for setting aside Rajendran’s election.
The Court therefore allowed the application filed by Rajendran and rejected the election petition at the threshold. The Court also directed that there would be no order as to costs and that the petitioner’s security deposit be refunded.
The ruling does not mean that involving children in political campaigning has been approved by the Court. Rather, the judgment holds that such conduct, even if improper or contrary to Election Commission directions, does not automatically satisfy the statutory requirements for invalidating an election.
Legal Significance
The judgment reinforces the principle that an election cannot be set aside merely because conduct during a campaign may be objectionable or politically inappropriate.
For an election challenge to succeed, the alleged conduct must fall within the specific grounds recognised under the Representation of the People Act.
The Court’s observations also highlight a gap between ethical concerns surrounding the use of children in political campaigns and the existing statutory grounds for invalidating an election. Whether such conduct should be expressly prohibited or made a ground for setting aside an election remains a matter for the legislature.
The decision therefore balances two considerations: the Court’s disapproval of using children for political campaigning and the requirement that an election can be invalidated only on legally recognised grounds.
