Children in Political Campaigns May Be In Poor Taste, but Not Grounds to Void Election: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has rejected an election petition challenging the election of Rajendran R. as MLA from the Salem North Assembly Constituency in Tamil Nadu. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that the allegations concerning the use of children in election campaigning and appeals asking them to persuade their parents to vote for the Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) did not disclose sufficient legal grounds to invalidate the election.

Background

K. Sivakumar, who contested the election as a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate, challenged Rajendran's victory in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. Rajendran secured 85,710 votes, while Sivakumar received 71,676 votes.

The election petition alleged that children were involved in TVK campaign activities, including rallies and online videos. It also referred to a speech by TVK president Joseph Vijay on April 21, 2026, in which he allegedly urged children to persuade their parents and family members to vote for the party.

Sivakumar argued that these activities amounted to undue influence, a form of electoral misconduct involving interference with voters' freedom of choice. He also relied on the Election Commission of India's directions prohibiting the use of children in election campaigns.

Rajendran sought rejection of the election petition, arguing that the allegations did not satisfy the statutory requirements for declaring an election void.

Justice Chakravarthy examined whether the alleged conduct could constitute undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether the allegations disclosed grounds for setting aside the election under Section 100.

The Court distinguished between persuasion during campaigning and interference that overpowers a voter's free will. It also observed that the party leader's speech could not, on the pleaded facts, be treated as a corrupt practice attributable to the returned candidate or his agent under the applicable statutory provisions.

The Court observed:

"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."

On the allegation of undue influence, the Court further held:

"But even if the materials presented are true and correct, the familial bond and emotion are exploited to sway the choice and cannot be elevated to a status where adults’ free will is overpowered. On the other hand, if the adults in the given situation take umbrage at the children's pestering to give themselves an excuse to make a particular choice, that is again their volition and does not overpower their free will."

The Court also clarified that the Election Commission's directions against involving children in election activities did not, by themselves, establish a statutory ground for invalidating the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv).

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed the application filed by Rajendran and rejected Sivakumar's election petition. The Court held that the pleaded allegations did not disclose a triable issue of undue influence or a sufficient cause of action for the relief sought.

No order as to costs was made, and the election petitioner's security deposit was directed to be refunded.

Case Details

• Case Title: K. Sivakumar v. Rajendran R. & Others
• Case Number: O.A. No. 890 of 2026 in E.L.P. No. 46 of 2026
• Judge: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
• Decision Date: October 15, 2026