PolicyCourts
Children in TVK campaign reels were 'cheap' but not undue influence, Madras High Court rules
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy threw out a DMK candidate's petition against the TVK's win in Salem North, saying adult voters still made their own choice.
Key points
- The Madras High Court rejected the DMK's election petition against TVK MLA R Rajendran of Salem North.
- The judge called using children in campaign reels 'cheap and politically motivated' but not a corrupt practice.
- Rajendran won the seat in 2026 by about 14,000 votes.
Getting children to nag their parents into voting for a party, and filming it for social media, is in poor taste but does not invalidate an election, the Madras High Court has ruled, rejecting a DMK candidate’s challenge to the TVK’s victory in Salem North.
In a judgment made public on Sunday, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy threw out the election petition filed by K Sivakumar, who lost the seat in the 2026 assembly election to the TVK’s R Rajendran. Mr Rajendran polled 85,710 votes to Mr Sivakumar’s 71,676.
The children’s campaign
Mr Sivakumar’s petition said children had been drawn into the TVK’s rallies and campaign, that party president Vijay had asked them to press their parents and relatives to vote for the party’s Whistle symbol, and that social media reels showed children doing just that. He argued this broke an Election Commission circular barring the use of children in campaigns and amounted to undue influence, a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The judge did not hide his distaste. “The entire act of involving tender children is in bad taste,” he said, adding that “making reels out of it is cheap and politically motivated”, and that adults’ emotional bonds with children had been “exploited to sway the choice”.
Why the petition failed
But the law sets a high bar. Undue influence means something close to “tyranny over the mind overpowering the volition without convincing the judgment”, the court said, and an adult who votes after being urged by a child still makes his or her own decision.
The Election Commission’s circular, though statutory in character, is not an “order” under the Act, so breaching it is not a ground to set aside an election, the judge held. Nor could Vijay’s appeal as party president be treated as an act of the candidate himself or one done with his consent.
Allowing Mr Rajendran’s application to reject the petition at the threshold, the court found it disclosed no triable cause of action even if every allegation were true. It made no order on costs and directed that Mr Sivakumar’s security deposit be refunded.