Using children for election campaign in bad taste but not ground to invalidate election: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Thursday held that the use of children for a political party's election campaigns is in bad taste, but such conduct, by itself, is not a ground to invalidate an election [K Sivakumar v R Rajendran].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy criticised the use of children to influence their parents' voting choices through social media videos.

However, the Court held that such persuasion could not automatically be treated as undue influence under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), to void an election.

The Court added that it is up to lawmakers in Parliament to decide whether such practices should be banned or made a ground for setting aside an election.

"The entire act of involving tender children is in bad taste, and the tasks they were allowed to perform reflect poor parenting; making reels out of it is cheap and politically motivated. This is a larger debate for the nation and Parliament to consider, including whether to prohibit it or make it grounds to set aside the election," the Court held.

The Court made the observation while rejecting an election petition challenging the victory of Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Rajendran from the Salem North Assembly constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections.

The petition was filed by DMK candidate Sivakumar, who had lost to Rajendran by 14,034 votes.

Sivakumar argued that Rajendran's election was marred by undue influence. He contended that TVK had used children in election campaigns in violation of Election Commission guidelines prohibiting their involvement in election-related activities.

He also relied on a speech delivered by TVK president Joseph Vijay (now Chief Minister) on April 21, 2026, in which the actor-politician allegedly urged children to pester their parents to vote for TVK, just as they would demand chocolates such as Kinder Joy.

The petition also cited several social media videos purportedly showing children pressuring or threatening family members to secure votes for TVK.

These included a child threatening to throw cow dung at a parent, another threatening suicide and a young woman allegedly threatening to poison her father's food if he refused to vote for the party.

Sivakumar argued that such tactics were impermissible and grounds to void the election.

The Court acknowledged that children exercised considerable influence over their parents, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where children were culturally accorded great importance.

Referring to Hindu traditions, the judge noted that children were often regarded as manifestations of God and that their words carried significant weight within families.

However, the Court distinguished ordinary persuasion from undue influence referred to in the RP Act, which requires interference with the free exercise of electoral rights.

The Court held that even if the petitioner's allegations are accepted as true, emotional pressure exerted through children could not be equated with overpowering the free will of adult voters.

It also observed that adults themselves were responsible for involving young children in the videos.

"Adults have shown these children the appeal of the leader, made them perform the acts, made reels, and popularised them," the Court said.

It further held that although the Election Commission's circular prohibiting the use of children in campaigning had a statutory character, its violation did not constitute an independent ground for invalidating an election under the RP Act.

The Court also ruled that Vijay's speech could not automatically be attributed to Rajendran as a corrupt practice without establishing the necessary connection to the candidate or his election agent.

Finding that the allegations did not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action, the Court rejected Sivakumar's election petition at the threshold.

Advocate G Murugendran represented Rajendran.

Senior Advocate NR Elango, instructed by advocate AS Aswin Prasanna, appeared for Sivakumar.

Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan represented the Returning Officer.

[Read Judgment]