The Madras High Court has ruled that involving children in political campaigning to influence their parents’ voting decisions may be distasteful, but the practice alone does not provide sufficient legal grounds to invalidate an election.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observations while dismissing an election petition challenging the victory of Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Rajendran in the Salem North Assembly constituency during the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections.
The petition was filed by DMK candidate K Sivakumar, who lost the election to Rajendran by 14,034 votes. Sivakumar alleged that the campaign had relied on children to exert pressure on family members, amounting to undue influence under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Court strongly criticised the practice, particularly the creation and circulation of social media videos featuring children attempting to persuade their parents to support a political party.
Justice Chakravarthy described the involvement of young children in such activities as inappropriate, adding that turning these acts into politically motivated social media reels reflected poor judgment by the adults responsible.
However, the Court distinguished objectionable campaign tactics from the legal threshold required to set aside an election. It held that emotional persuasion by children did not automatically establish undue influence, which must interfere with an individual’s freedom to exercise their electoral rights.
Social media videos at the centre of the dispute
Sivakumar’s petition referred to a speech delivered by TVK president Joseph Vijay, now Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, on April 21, 2026. According to the petitioner, Vijay had encouraged children to press their parents to vote for TVK, comparing the appeal to children demanding chocolates such as Kinder Joy.
The petition also cited social media videos allegedly showing children threatening family members to secure votes for the party. The examples included threats to throw cow dung at a parent, commit suicide and poison a father’s food if he refused to vote for TVK.
Sivakumar argued that these incidents violated Election Commission guidelines prohibiting the use of children in election-related activities and should be treated as grounds for invalidating Rajendran’s victory.
The Court acknowledged that children can hold considerable sway over their parents, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where they are often accorded a prominent place within family life.
Nevertheless, it found that such influence, even if the allegations were accepted as true, could not by itself be equated with overpowering an adult voter’s free will.
The judge also pointed out that adults had introduced the children to the political messaging, encouraged them to perform the acts, recorded the videos and helped circulate them.
Election guidelines do not automatically invalidate results
The Court further held that violating the Election Commission’s circular prohibiting children’s participation in campaigning did not independently constitute a ground for setting aside an election under the Representation of the People Act.
It also ruled that Vijay’s speech could not automatically be treated as a corrupt electoral practice attributable to Rajendran without establishing the required connection between the speech and the candidate or his election agent.
The judge observed that whether the use of children in political campaigns should be expressly prohibited or made a specific ground for invalidating election results was a broader policy question for Parliament to consider.
Finding that the petition failed to establish a legally sustainable basis for challenging the result, the Court dismissed Sivakumar’s plea at the threshold.
The ruling draws a distinction between conduct that the Court considers politically and socially inappropriate and conduct that meets the legal requirements for overturning an election.