Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the instructions would thus be binding on the candidates. The court thus rejected the claim of TVK MLA Vijayakumar, who claimed that the ECI's instruction not to engage children during election campaign would not be an election offence.

"One of the grounds that had been raised is that instructions have been given not to engage the children during the election campaign. It is to be noted that instructions given to a candidate in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are binding on the candidate, as it has a statutory force," the court said.

The court was hearing an application filed by TVK MLA from Thiruverumbur (General) Assembly constituency, Vijayakumar (A) Navalpattu S Viji seeking to reject the election petition filed by DMK's Anbil Mahesh, challenging Viji's victory.

Viji had argued that in the election petition, Mahesh had not made submitted anything to show how the election had been materially affected. He argued that when there was no submission on how the result was affected, the election petition itself need to be sent to trial for adjudication.

On Mahesh's argument that Viji had violated the ECI's instruction on not using for election campaigning, Viji argued that a mere violation of instructions cannot be a ground to set aside the election, as such instruction do not spell out the consequences of such violation and at most it could only be an election offence and nothing else.

On the other hand, Mahesh's side argued that the instruction given by the Election Commission would arise out of powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and are binding on the Returning Officer and the candidate.

The court noted that whether the grounds raised by Mahesh have materially affected the election could be gone into only if the grounds are substantiated. The court also noted that veracity of submission with respect to violation committed by Viji could be gone into only at the time of trial.

The court added that when it was found that there was a violation of the ECI's instructions, it might have a material effect on the election and a decision regarding the same could be taken only after completing trial in the election petition.

The court was thus not inclined to reject the election petition and dismissed Viji's application. The court also directed Viji to file his reply to the election petition within 4 weeks.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. Antony R Julian

Counsel for Respondent: Richardson Wilson