Madras High Court slams use of children in political campaign reels, calls practice ‘cheap and politically motivated’

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has strongly criticised the use of children in political campaigns and social media reels to influence voters, describing the practice as being in bad taste and reflecting poor parenting. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observations while hearing an application by TVK MLA K. Sivakumar seeking the rejection of an election petition filed by R. Rajendran, the defeated DMK candidate who challenged Sivakumar’s victory in the Salem North constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The petition alleged that children had been used to campaign for Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and its candidates.

The judge described the involvement of young children in such activities and the making of social media reels featuring them as “cheap and politically motivated”. However, the court held that exploiting family relationships and emotions to influence voting choices did not automatically amount to undue influence under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The judge said Parliament should consider whether such practices should be prohibited or made grounds for setting aside an election.

The case stemmed from a speech by TVK president and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay at a public meeting at the YMCA grounds in Nandanam, Chennai. According to the election petition, Vijay urged children to persuade their parents and other family members to vote for TVK and its whistle symbol. Comparing the appeal to children persistently demanding chocolates, he reportedly asked them to insist that their parents vote for the party for “Vijay Mama” (Vijay uncle).

The petition alleged that several social media reels subsequently showed children pressuring or threatening family members to vote for TVK. The videos cited allegedly included a child threatening to throw cow dung at a parent, a young woman threatening to poison her father’s food and a child threatening suicide if the grandparents refused to vote for the party. Other videos purportedly showed children threatening to assault relatives, damage their mobile phones and spectacles, or confront family members who supported rival parties.

The petition also cited videos in which adults claimed to have voted for TVK’s whistle symbol because of pressure from children. It further alleged that Vijay had thanked children for campaigning for him and his party after the election victory. These claims were allegations in the election petition, not findings independently established by the court.'

The court observed that young children were unlikely to have independently created and circulated such content. Justice Chakravarthy said adults had shown the children the leader’s appeal, encouraged them to perform the acts, recorded the videos and popularised the reels. He strongly disapproved of adults involving children in such activities. However, the judge held that even if the allegations were accepted as true, exploiting family bonds and emotions to influence voting choices did not establish that adult voters’ free will had been overpowered. If adults used their children’s insistence to justify their voting decisions, the court observed, the ultimate choice remained theirs.

The petition alleged that involving children in election rallies and campaign activities violated Election Commission of India instructions prohibiting their participation in election-related activities. The court distinguished an alleged violation of Election Commission directions from the statutory grounds for declaring an election void under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

It held that even if the Election Commission’s circular had the force of law, its violation did not independently constitute a ground for invalidating an election under Section 100 of the Act. The court also held that Vijay’s appeal, made in his capacity as TVK president, could not automatically be attributed to the returned candidate or his election agent as a corrupt electoral practice without establishing the necessary legal connection.

Finding that the allegations did not disclose a legally sustainable ground for invalidating the election, the court allowed Sivakumar’s application and rejected Rajendran’s election petition. The judge reiterated that whether the use of children to influence voting decisions should be prohibited or made grounds for setting aside an election was a larger question for Parliament to consider.