CHENNAI: The Madras High Court said involving young children in election campaigns was in bad taste and reflected poor parenting, but held that such acts did not amount to corrupt practice warranting the setting aside of an election.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said Vijay’s appeal as TVK chief could not be attributed to the candidate or his agent, or deemed to have been made with their consent. Any violation of the Election Commission’s directives could invite separate action, but such campaigning was not a ground for ‘corrupt practice’ under Sections 123(2), 100(d) or 100(1)(d)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act.

The court was hearing an application by TVK MLA K Sivakumar of Salem (North) seeking to reject DMK’s R Rajendran’s election petition challenging his victory.

Rajendran alleged that children were used in Sivakumar’s election campaign, citing a complaint lodged with the returning officer on April 11, 2026, and videos showing children participating in rallies, in violation of the Election Commission of India’s February 5, 2024, circular.

He further alleged that social media posts showed children and young adults pressuring or threatening family members to vote for the returned candidate, amounting to undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act.

Sivakumar argued that adults exercised their voting rights freely and that the Election Commission’s circular was only a guideline, not a law or order.

The court noted that young children neither possessed mobile phones nor made reels. Adults had shown them the leader’s appeal, made them perform the acts, and popularised the videos. Hence, it could not be viewed as the children alone overpowering adults’ free will, but at best as an attempt to persuade them to vote for the party and candidate without informed consideration of the candidates.

The court said involving young children in such activities was in bad taste and reflected poor parenting. Making reels out of it was cheap and politically motivated. It added that whether to prohibit such acts or make them grounds to set aside an election was a matter for the nation and Parliament to debate.

The court said that even if the allegations were true, exploiting family bonds and emotions could not overpower adults’ free will. If adults used children’s persuasion as an excuse to make a particular choice, it was their own decision and did not undermine their free will.

The court held that the appeal, the children’s subsequent actions and the adults’ responses did not establish a triable issue of undue influence, even if the election petition’s allegations were accepted as true. It said the petition did not disclose grounds for granting the relief sought.

The court allowed Sivakumar’s application and rejected Rajendran’s election petition.