Using Children In Election Reels Is “Cheap” But Not Undue Influence Unless Adult Voters’ Free Will Is Overpowered: Madras High Court
The Court described involving young children in politically motivated reels as being in “bad taste” and reflecting “poor parenting”, but held that any decision by adults to vote in response remained an exercise of their own volition.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has described using children in politically motivated election reels as “cheap” and reflective of poor parenting, but held that such conduct does not amount to undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 unless it overpowers adult voters’ free will.
The Court consequently rejected an election petition challenging the victory of TVK candidate R. Rajendran from the Salem North Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections. It held that the allegations did not disclose a triable cause of action even if accepted as true.
The Court was hearing an application seeking rejection of an election petition filed by DMK candidate K. Sivakumar under Section 83 of the 1951 Act read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petition alleged that children were involved in campaigning and were encouraged by TVK president Joseph Vijay to persuade their parents to vote for the party.
A Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy 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.”
The Court added: “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.”
Advocate G. Murugendran appeared for the returned candidate. Senior Advocate N.R. Elango, instructed by Advocate A.S. Aswin Prasanna, appeared for the election petitioner, while Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan appeared for the Returning Officer.
Background
Rajendran contested the Salem North seat as a Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam candidate and secured 85,710 votes. Sivakumar, the DMK candidate, received 71,676 votes.
The election petition alleged that children had participated in rallies and that TVK president Joseph Vijay had asked them to pester their parents and other family members to vote for the party’s Whistle symbol. It relied upon social-media reels purportedly showing children pressuring family members to support TVK.
The petition alleged that this conduct violated an Election Commission circular prohibiting the involvement of children in election campaigns and constituted undue influence under Section 123(2) of the 1951 Act.
The returned candidate sought rejection of the petition, contending that the alleged conduct did not interfere with adult voters’ free choice. He also argued that the party president’s speech could not be treated as a corrupt practice committed by the candidate, his agent or another person acting with their consent.
Court’s Observations
Election Petition Could Be Rejected After Written Statement
The Court rejected the contention that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC could not be entertained because it was filed after the returned candidate’s written statement.
Referring to Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986), Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) and Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Agrawal (2009), the Court held that it was required to examine whether an election petition disclosed the material facts and a complete cause of action.
Quoting Hari Shanker Jain (2001), the Court stated: “It is the duty of the court to examine the petition irrespective of any written statement or denial and reject the petition if it does not disclose a cause of action. To enable a court to reject a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and nothing else. Courts have always frowned upon vague pleadings which leave a wide scope to adduce any evidence. No amount of evidence can cure basic defect in the pleadings.”
Election Commission Circular Did Not Supply A Ground To Void Election
The Court noted that the Election Commission’s circular prohibited political parties and candidates from using children in campaigns, rallies or canvassing.
The Bench held that the circular had statutory character because it was issued under the Election Commission’s general supervisory power under Article 324. However, it was not an “Order” made under the Representation of the People Act for the purpose of Section 100(1)(d)(iv).
The Court held: “The only difference in the instant case is that the Circular has a statutory character, having been issued by the Election Commission of India in exercise of its general power of superintendence under Article 324 of the Constitution of India, but it cannot be considered an Order under the Act, and the consequences of its non-compliance have been mentioned supra. Thus, the question is answered that a violation of the Election Commission of India's circular dated 05.02.2024, in the context of the present case, would not entitle the election petitioner to relief to set aside the election of the returned candidate under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.”
Children’s Conduct Did Not Overpower Adult Volition
Referring to Shiv Kirpal Singh v. V.V. Giri (1970) and Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015), the Court observed that persuasion or canvassing becomes undue influence only when it reaches the level of tyranny over the voter’s mind and overpowers free volition.
The Court stated: “While persuasion or canvassing will not amount to interference, if it reaches the point of ‘tyranny over the mind overpowering the volition without convincing the judgment’, it would be undue influence.”
The Court noted that the children could neither have created nor circulated the reels themselves. Adults had shown them the political appeal, made them perform the acts, created the videos and publicised them.
The Bench observed: “Thus, it cannot be seen as the tender children's sole act of committing tyranny over the mind, overpowering volition. At best, it can be seen as convincing adults to vote for the party and the candidate. It is not based on informed consideration of the candidates or the way adults are supposed to make choices in a democracy.”
The Court held that, although the conduct deserved criticism, it did not disclose a triable claim that adult voters’ free exercise of their electoral rights had been overpowered.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s claim of deemed consent. It held that Vijay’s appeal, made as president of the political party, could not be treated as having been made by the returned candidate, his agent or another person with their consent. Campaigning by a political-party president was not, by itself, included as a corrupt practice under Sections 123(2) and 100 of the Act.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the application for rejection and dismissed the election petition challenging the election.
The Court made no order as to costs and directed that the election petitioner’s security deposit be refunded.
Cause Title: K. Sivakumar v. R. Rajendran and Others
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocate N.R. Elango; Advocate A.S. Aswin Prasanna
Respondents: Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan; Advocate G. Murugendran