Use of children in campaign won't invalidate election: CM Vijay to Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay has told the Madras High Court that use of children in his election campaign cannot, by itself, constitute a ground to invalidate his victory from the Tiruchirappalli East Assembly constituency. [Inigo Irudayaraj Vs Joseph Vijay]

Vijay made the submission in an application seeking rejection of an election petition filed by defeated Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate S Inigo Irudayaraj.

Vijay had defeated Irudayaraj by 27,416 votes.

In his response to Irudayaraj's election petition, Vijay has denied all allegations made against him.

However, while addressing the allegation concerning children, he argued that even if such an allegation is assumed to be correct, it would not disclose a legally sustainable ground to set aside the election.

Irudayaraj moved the Court alleging that Vijay and persons associated with the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party involved children in election campaign activities.

He relied upon a February 5, 2024 directive issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) which prohibits political parties and candidates from using children in election-related activities.

The election petition said that the directive was issued under Article 324 of the Constitution and that its violation attracted Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (ROPA).

Vijay, however, has argued that the petition failed to establish that the ECI directive was an order issued under the ROPA. He added that a violation of the Model Code of Conduct would not, by itself, constitute an independent ground to declare an election void under Section 100 of the Act.

According to Vijay, the election petition does not explain how the alleged involvement of children resulted in any particular number of votes being cast in his favour.

The petitioner has merely claimed that voters had been “emotionally swayed” and that the alleged conduct had made a “deep impact” on the electorate, Vijay has contended.

Thus, there is no factual connection between the alleged violations and this victory margin, he has maintained.

Vijay's application has also slight rejection of allegations concerning suppressed election expenditure, foreign funding, discrepancies in Vijay’s Form 26 affidavit and the use of religious places for campaigning.

On election expenditure, Vijay has said that the petition by Irudayaraj relies on approximate figures without identifying who spent the money, when it was paid or whether he or his election agent had authorised it.

Further, while the election petition claimed that foreign funds were injected into Vijay’s campaign, Vjiay has stated that the petitioner has not identified any contributor, amount, recipient, bank account or mode of transfer.

On the allegation that he campaigned at places of worship, Vijay has said the petition does not specify any statement through which he appealed for votes on religious grounds.

“The mere allegation that a candidate entered a place of worship or engaged in prayer, without pleading the statutory ingredients of the alleged corrupt practice, cannot by itself constitute a complete cause of action under Section 123(3),” Vijay has said.

The case is expected to be heard on August 31.