The Madras High Court recently held that CM Vijay's appeal to children to persuade their parents to vote for the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party would not amount to undue influence or corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act warranting a challenge to his victory. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 506]

"Thus, as far as the appeal made by Mr.Joseph Vijay, as the leader of the political party, is concerned, it cannot be said that it was committed by the candidate or his agent, or with the consent of the candidate or his agent. As noted supra, the speech, at best, if it is in violation of the directives of the Election Commission, would involve further action, as undertaken before the Bombay High Court with reference to the Symbols Order by the Election Commission of India. Neither Section 123(2) nor Section 100(d) nor Section 100(1)(d)(ii) include such an act of campaigning by the President of the political party as a ground of 'corrupt practice' under Section 100 of the Act," the court said. 

However, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the videos that were circulating online, which showed children asking their family members to vote for TVK, were in bad taste and reflected poor parenting. The court added that the issue of whether it could be a ground to set aside the election was a matter for a larger debate by the nation and the Parliament. 

"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 observed.

The court remarked that such persuasion by the children, even if taken to be true and correct, was not one which would sway the choice of the adult exercising his/her right to vote. The court added that even if the parents use the persuasion as an excuse to make a particular choice, it would be on their own volition and could not be said to be under undue influence. 

"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 said.

The court was hearing an application filed by TVK MLA from Salem (North) constituency, K Sivakumar, seeking to reject the election petition filed by DMK's R Rajendran challenging his victory. 

Rajendran submitted that on April 11, 2026, a member of the DMK Legal Wing lodged a complaint with the returning officer stating that children were being used for campaigning on behalf of Sivakumar. He had also produced videos showing children taking part in election rallies and argued that such conduct materially affects the election.

It was argued that such participation of children violated the circular issued by the Election Commission of India on February 5, 2024, asking parties not to use children in election campaign/rallies/in any form whatsoever, including distribution of posters/pamphlets or participation in slogan shouting, campaign rallies, election meetings, etc.

Rajendran further submitted that on April 21, 2026, the TVK party head Joseph Vijay had made a direct appeal to teh children, urging them to influence their parents and other family members to cast their votes in favour of TVK. He argued that the appeal was intended to exploit familial relationships and exert emotional influence by encouraging minors to pressure eligible voters to cast their votes in favour of the candidate.

It was submitted that pursuant to Vijay's speech, various content was posted in social media, showing children and young adults urging, pressuring, and, in certain instances, threatening their parents and other family members to vote for the returned candidate. It was thus argued that the act of the party members amounted to an act of undue influence, a corrupt practice as enumerated under Section 123(2) of the Act.

Seeking to reject the election petition, Sivakumar filed an application arguing that the same was unsustainable, even if the averments in the petition are taken as correct. Sivakumar argued that the acts alleged by Rajendran would not amount to corrupt practice and could not be a ground to reject the election under Section 100(1)(b) or 100(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It was argued that the action complained of does not amount to undue influence, as adults exercise the franchise of their own free will, and persuasion by children will not restrain their free will in exercising their franchise.

It was also argued that the Election Commission's circular could not be treated as law or an order and it was at best only a guideline. Thus, it was argued that violation of the circular would not amount to violation of any order or law issued by the Election Commission. 

The court noted that when the Bombay High Court was hearing a case over use of minors in various election-related activities, the ECI had informed the court that with respect to recognised parties, any refusal to comply with the direction would be dealt with under No.16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.

The court added that the election petition was a remedy specifically provided under the Statute which could be availed strictly on the grounds provided under the Act. The court thus noted that even if the ECI's circular was held to have the force of law, it would bring in consequences as recorded before the Bombay High Court and would not be a ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), to set aside the election of the returned candidate. 

Further, the court noted that to constitute corrupt practice, the undue influence should be committed by the candidate, his agents, or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In the present case, the court observed that the party leader's appeal to the children cannot be said to be with the consent of the candidate or his agents.

Thus, noting that the action of persuasion by children would not come under undue influence, the court held that the election petition did not disclose a cause of action to grant the relief as sought. The court was thus inclined to reject the election petition. 

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. G. Murugendran

Counsel for Respondent: N.R.Elango Senior Counsel for Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan