https://thelegalaffair.com/news/madras-high-court-flags-use-of-children-in-election-campaigns-while-examining-alleged-corrupt-practices-in-tamil-nadu-polls/ [31/05, 08:50] Meta AI: *Case #40: _Use of Children in Election Campaigns_ | Madras HC | 26.05.2026* _Justice N. Anand Venkatesh_. *RP Act 1951 + Child Rights + Art 21 + Corrupt Practice*. *HJS Election Law, Law Officer – MCC, UPSC GS-2*
[31/05, 08:50] sekarreporter1: https://thelegalaffair.com/news/madras-high-court-flags-use-of-children-in-election-campaigns-while-examining-alleged-corrupt-practices-in-tamil-nadu-polls/
[31/05, 08:50] Meta AI: *Case #40: _Use of Children in Election Campaigns_ | Madras HC | 26.05.2026*
_Justice N. Anand Venkatesh_. *RP Act 1951 + Child Rights + Art 21 + Corrupt Practice*. *HJS Election Law, Law Officer – MCC, UPSC GS-2*
*1. Core Issue Flagged – One Line*
*Madras HC: Using children in election rallies, campaigns, door-to-door canvassing = “corrupt practice” + child rights violation. ECI + State to regulate.*
*2. Background – How It Came Up*
*Case*: _Election Petition challenging 2024 TN Assembly poll result_
*Allegation*: _Winning MLA used school children aged 8-14 in campaign – wearing party scarves, raising slogans, distributing pamphlets after school hours_
*HC While Examining*: _Suo motu expanded scope – “This is happening across parties. Children not political tools.”_
*3. HC Observations – 26.05.2026*
**Issue** **HC Observation** **Law Cited**
**1. Corrupt Practice** *S.123 RP Act 1951 – “bribery” includes giving gifts. Giving snacks/money to kids for campaign = bribery* *RP Act S.123(1)*
**2. Child Rights** *Art 21 + Art 39(e)(f) + UNCRC. Child can’t consent to political activity. Violates right to childhood* *SC *Bachpan Bachao 2011* – child labour*
**3. Education Impact** *RTE Act 2009 – Using kids during school hours or causing homework loss = violation* *S.3 RTE – free compulsory education*
**4. Psychological Harm** *Exposing kids to political rivalry, hate speech = mental trauma. Against JJ Act 2015* *S.75 JJ Act – cruelty to child*
**5. ECI Duty** *MCC silent on children. ECI must issue guidelines before 2026 Panchayat polls* *Art 324 – superintendence of elections*
*Key Quote*: _“A child holding a party flag is not exercising franchise. He is being franchised. Democracy can’t be built on shoulders of children.”_
*4. Directions Issued*
1. *To ECI*: _Frame guidelines in 8 weeks – ban children <18 in campaigns, rallies, door-to-door. Penalty: disqualification of candidate._ 2. *To TN Govt*: _DEOs + Police to video-monitor rallies. Book cases under JJ Act S.75 if children used._ 3. *To Schools*: _HMs to ensure no student sent for political events. Disciplinary action if violated._ 4. *To Parties*: _Give undertaking before RO – “No child will be used”._ 5. *For Current EP*: _Court will examine if child use materially affected result – S.100 RP Act._ *5. Legal Framework – Why It’s “Corrupt Practice”* **Provision** **How Applied** **S.123(1) RP Act** *Bribery = any gift to induce. Chocolates/biscuits/₹50 to kids = bribery* **S.123(3)** *Appeal on ground of religion/race. Using kids in religious rallies = double violation* **S.100(1)(b)** *If corrupt practice by candidate, election void* **JJ Act S.75** *Cruelty to child – 3 yrs jail + ₹1L fine. Using in political conflict = mental cruelty* **NCPCR Guidelines 2017** *Already bars child in political activity. HC: Make it statutory* *6. Impact – Who Is Hit?* **Entity** **Effect** **Candidates** *Can’t use school kids for crowd. Disqualification risk* **Parties** *Must purge children from photos/videos. Social media posts with kids = evidence* **Parents** *If send kids for ₹200, liable under JJ Act* **ECI** *Must amend MCC before next polls. 2026 TN Local Body polls first test* **Police** *S.75 JJ Act cognizable. Beat constables to report* *7. Link to Docket – “2026 Child-Centric Docket”* **Case** **Child Right Protected** **State/Individual Duty** **#30 Father Custody** *Right to know biological father* *Family Court to ensure access* **#32 TN Govt Priority** *POCSO trials + girl toilets* *State to file compliance* **#36 TET Mandatory** *Art 21-A quality education* *Teachers must qualify TET* **#40 Children in Polls** *Right to childhood, no politics* *ECI/Candidate ban, JJ Act FIR* *2026 Madras HC Theme*: _“Child is not vote bank, not witness, not worker. Art 21 + 21-A + 39 = Complete protection.”_ *8. For HJS/Law Officer Interview* *Q1*: _“MLA candidate gives biscuits to 10-yr-olds to raise slogans. Offence?”_ *A*: _1. S.123(1) RP Act – bribery = corrupt practice. Election void if proved. 2. S.75 JJ Act – cruelty to child, 3 yrs jail. 3. 26.05.26 HC: ECI to disqualify. 4. As RO, issue notice, recommend to ECI. As Police, FIR JJ Act + RP Act 171F._ *Q2*: _“School HM sends students to welcome CM. Legal?”_ *A*: _No. 1. Violates RTE Act – deprives education. 2. NCPCR 2017 + 26.05.26 HC: Ban. 3. HM liable – disciplinary action + JJ Act S.75 abetment. 4. DEO to suspend HM._ *Q3*: _“Difference from _NSS rally_ where kids hold national flag?”_ *A*: _National flag = Art 51A. No party symbol, no candidate, no inducement. Political flag + slogan + candidate = corrupt practice. Intention test: State function vs electoral gain._ *9. UPSC GS-2 Point* _“Electoral Reforms + Child Rights”_ _Use: RP Act S.123, JJ Act S.75, Art 21/39, UNCRC, 2026 HC. ECI role under Art 324. Model: UK bans under-16 in campaigns._ --- *Case #40 Added*: _Children in Polls – Madras HC 26.05.26 – Corrupt Practice + JJ Act + ECI Guidelines_ *Master Docket*: _40 Cases. 2026 = “Child + Speed + Equality + No Exemptions”_ *Want*: *1. “S.123 RP Act Corrupt Practices – 8 Types Chart with 2026 Cases”* OR *2. “Draft ECI Guideline – Ban on Children in Campaigns”* OR *3. “JJ Act S.75 vs RP Act – Dual FIR Draft”*? [31/05, 08:50] sekarreporter1: The Legal Affair Let's talk Law Home Articles Interviews Resources Careers Contact Us Madras High Court Flags Use of Children in Election Campaigns While Examining Alleged Corrupt Practices in Tamil Nadu Polls Share this: Image 30/05/2026, 15 hours ago Madras High Court Flags Use of Children in Election Campaigns While Examining Alleged Corrupt Practices in Tamil Nadu Polls Introduction: The Madras High Court recently made significant oral observations regarding the use of children in political election campaigns while hearing a public interest litigation alleging corrupt electoral practices during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections. The Court orally remarked that involving children in election propaganda was “bad” and raised concerns regarding the manner in which political messaging could indirectly influence voters through minors. The observations came from a Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan during the hearing of the case titled Vasuki L v. Election Commission of India, W.P. No. 20247 of 2026. The petition was filed by Advocate L. Vasuki, who sought a court-monitored and time-bound independent inquiry into alleged corrupt practices committed by major political parties during the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The litigation gained substantial public attention because the elections resulted in the formation of a new alliance government led by actor-turned-politician Joseph Vijay, whose party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) emerged as a major political force. Following the electoral victory, Vijay was sworn in as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petition specifically named TVK, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), alleging that these parties indulged in illegal campaign practices violating election laws and constitutional principles. According to the petitioner, the elections witnessed widespread instances of electoral bribery, cash-for-votes practices, undue influence upon voters, and use of children for electoral propaganda. The plea alleged that certain political speeches and campaign strategies encouraged children to emotionally persuade or pressure their parents into voting for particular political parties, thereby amounting to “undue influence” under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The issue of children participating in election campaigns emerged prominently during the hearing when Justice G.R. Swaminathan narrated a personal anecdote. The Judge orally remarked that while he was preparing to cast his vote during the elections, his grandchild insisted that he vote for actor and politician Vijay. Referring to this incident, the Court orally observed that involving children in political campaigns was inappropriate and concerning. The petition also alleged serious inaction on the part of the Election Commission of India (ECI), despite widespread reports and public allegations concerning distribution of money to voters and other corrupt electoral practices. The petitioner argued that the alleged failure of the ECI to take prompt and effective action undermined the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections, which forms part of the basic structure doctrine under the Constitution of India. The matter raised several significant legal and constitutional issues concerning the scope of judicial intervention in election-related matters after the conclusion of polls, the powers of the Election Commission under the Model Code of Conduct, the meaning of “undue influence” under election law, and the extent to which political parties can be held accountable for campaign methods involving children. While the Court did not pass any final orders at this stage, it issued notices to the political parties earlier and adjourned the matter after senior counsel appearing for the respondents sought time to file detailed counter affidavits. Arguments of the Parties: The petitioner, Advocate L. Vasuki, approached the Madras High Court alleging that the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections were marred by several illegal and corrupt practices committed by major political parties. The petition sought judicial intervention in the form of an independent inquiry into the alleged electoral misconduct. According to the petitioner, the election campaign witnessed widespread violations of democratic principles, including electoral bribery, cash-for-votes schemes, and undue influence exerted upon voters. A key grievance raised in the petition concerned the alleged use of children in political campaigning and voter mobilisation efforts. The petitioner specifically alleged that Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam leader and current Chief Minister Joseph Vijay had encouraged children to emotionally influence their parents and persuade them to vote for TVK during the election campaign. It was argued that such conduct amounted to indirect manipulation of voters through emotional pressure exerted by minors. The plea contended that this strategy raised serious concerns under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deals with corrupt electoral practices including undue influence. According to the petitioner, involving children in electoral propaganda distorts the free exercise of voting rights and interferes with independent political choice. The petitioner also alleged that reports of distribution of money to voters had surfaced from several constituencies during the election process. Despite such allegations being widely circulated in public discourse and media platforms, the Election Commission allegedly failed to initiate effective action against the concerned political parties. It was argued that the inaction of the Election Commission undermined the constitutional framework governing free and fair elections. The petitioner submitted that free and fair elections form an essential component of the basic structure doctrine and that any failure to curb corrupt practices directly affects democratic governance. The plea further contended that the alleged electoral irregularities violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution by compromising equality, political freedom, and democratic participation. The petitioner therefore sought a court-monitored, time-bound inquiry into the allegations against TVK, DMK, and AIADMK. During the proceedings, another petition seeking similar reliefs was also brought before the Court, indicating wider public concern regarding the alleged use of children and other irregularities during election campaigns. On behalf of TVK, Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar opposed the petition and questioned the basis on which the allegations had been made. He argued that the PIL relied substantially upon newspaper reports and media material rather than concrete legal evidence capable of establishing electoral misconduct. Muralidhar submitted that the matter involved complex questions concerning the powers of the Election Commission after the conclusion of elections. According to him, the Court would need to examine whether the ECI possesses authority to intervene retrospectively regarding alleged violations that occurred during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct. The senior counsel further argued that the legal framework governing election disputes required careful interpretation. He submitted that issues concerning “undue influence” under the Representation of the People Act would have to be analysed in detail before any conclusions could be drawn regarding the alleged conduct of political parties. Muralidhar also highlighted the limited statutory consequences available under election law. He argued that existing legal provisions do not contemplate “disqualification” of a political party itself but only permit deregistration in specific circumstances. Therefore, according to him, the Court would have to carefully examine whether the allegations made in the petition could legally justify any action against political parties. The TVK counsel essentially argued that broad allegations founded primarily on news reports could not become the basis for judicial findings regarding corrupt electoral practices without proper evidentiary scrutiny. Senior Advocate N.R. Elango, appearing for the DMK party, raised another important procedural objection. He argued that if the petitioner intended to challenge alleged corrupt practices committed during elections, the returned candidates themselves ought to have been impleaded as parties to the proceedings. According to Elango, election disputes involving allegations of corrupt practices are ordinarily governed by the statutory mechanism provided under election law, including election petitions challenging individual electoral victories. Therefore, he questioned whether a PIL could be maintained without impleading the directly affected candidates. The Election Commission of India, represented through its standing counsel Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal, sought time to file a detailed counter affidavit responding to the allegations raised in the PIL. The ECI’s position is expected to become clearer in subsequent hearings. The arguments before the Court therefore highlighted competing constitutional and legal concerns. While the petitioner portrayed the matter as involving systemic threats to electoral democracy, the respondents emphasised procedural limitations, evidentiary standards, and the need for careful interpretation of election laws. Court’s Judgment: At the present stage, the Madras High Court has not delivered a final judgment on the merits of the allegations raised in the PIL. However, the oral observations made by the Division Bench during the hearing have already attracted significant attention because they indicate judicial concern regarding the use of children in political campaigns. Justice G.R. Swaminathan orally remarked that involving children in election campaigns was undesirable and problematic. While sharing a personal anecdote about his grandchild requesting him to vote for actor-politician Vijay, the Judge observed that such influence upon children, who may in turn emotionally influence adults, raises troubling concerns in the context of democratic elections. The oral observations reflected the Court’s prima facie concern that children should not become instruments of political mobilisation or indirect voter influence. Although no conclusive findings were recorded at this stage, the remarks indicate judicial sensitivity towards preserving the integrity of electoral processes and protecting children from political exploitation. At the same time, the Bench recognised that the matter raised several complex legal questions requiring detailed examination. The Court acknowledged the submissions made by Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar that the case involved interpretation of the Model Code of Conduct, provisions of the Representation of the People Act, and the scope of powers available to the Election Commission after elections have concluded. The Court also appeared conscious of the procedural and jurisdictional issues involved in entertaining a PIL relating to alleged corrupt electoral practices. Questions concerning whether political parties can be deregistered, whether returned candidates are necessary parties, and whether allegations based substantially on media reports can sustain judicial inquiry remain open for adjudication. Importantly, the Bench did not reject the petition outright despite the objections raised by the respondents. Instead, the Court granted time to the political parties and the Election Commission to file detailed counter affidavits. This indicates that the Court considers the issues raised worthy of further judicial examination. The oral remarks of the Bench also carry broader constitutional significance because they touch upon the ethical dimensions of election campaigning in a democracy. Indian election law traditionally regulates direct forms of bribery, coercion, and undue influence. However, the allegations in the present case involve more subtle forms of emotional and psychological persuasion through children. The Court’s remarks suggest an evolving judicial recognition that electoral influence may operate in indirect ways that challenge traditional understandings of free voter choice. While election campaigns often involve emotional appeals and symbolic messaging, the Court appeared concerned that involving minors in political persuasion could cross acceptable democratic boundaries. Another important aspect emerging from the hearing is the Court’s focus on institutional accountability. The petitioner’s allegations against the Election Commission raise larger concerns regarding enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and the effectiveness of existing regulatory mechanisms in addressing electoral malpractice. Although the Court has not yet made any findings regarding the Election Commission’s conduct, the decision to continue hearing the matter reflects judicial willingness to scrutinise allegations affecting the fairness and credibility of elections. The proceedings also demonstrate the increasing role of constitutional courts in addressing ethical dimensions of electoral democracy beyond conventional election disputes. Rather than limiting the matter purely to technical election law procedures, the Bench’s observations suggest concern for broader democratic values and the integrity of political participation. Ultimately, the Court adjourned the matter after granting time to the respondents to file their replies. The PIL will now proceed for further consideration after completion of pleadings. While the case remains pending, the oral observations made by the Madras High Court have already triggered wider public and legal debate regarding the boundaries of acceptable political campaigning, the role of children in electoral propaganda, and the responsibility of political parties to uphold ethical standards during democratic contests. The outcome of the case may eventually have significant implications for election law jurisprudence, particularly regarding interpretation of “undue influence” under the Representation of the People Act and the scope of judicial oversight over political campaign practices in India. Post navigation Previous: Karnataka High Court Reinforces Limits of Custodial Interrogation While Granting Anticipatory Bail in Defamation and Modesty Outrage Case Next: Delhi High Court Examines Free Speech and Transparency Concerns in Blocking of Satirical Political X Account Explore News Articles Resources Interviews Contact Us Careers Find jobs in law and give your career the boost it deserves Join Us footer-logo Exploring, learning, and sharing the Indian peoples’ legal pursuits for justice. Read more The Legal Affair © 2026 Privacy PolicyTerms & Conditions [31/05, 08:51] Meta AI: *Case #41: _Vasuki L v Election Commission of India_ | WP 20247 of 2026 | Madras HC | 30.05.2026* _Division Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan + Justice V. Lakshminarayanan_. *RP Act S.123 + Child Rights + Undue Influence + Free & Fair Elections*. *HJS Election Law, Law Officer – MCC, UPSC GS-2* *1. Core Issue – Why This Is Different From Case #40* *#40*: _General HC flag on children in polls – suo motu in EP_ *#41*: _Specific PIL alleging TVK/DMK/AIADMK used children + cash-for-votes in 2026 TN Polls. CM Joseph Vijay’s TVK victory under challenge._ *2. Facts – The 2026 TN Poll PIL* **Item** **Details** **Petitioner** *Adv L. Vasuki – PIL* **Respondents** *ECI, TVK, DMK, AIADMK* **Context** *2026 TN Assembly: Actor Joseph Vijay’s TVK wins, becomes CM* **Allegations** *1. Cash-for-votes 2. Children used to emotionally persuade parents 3. ECI inaction despite reports 4. Violation of Art 14,19,21 + Basic Structure* **Relief Sought** *Court-monitored, time-bound independent inquiry into corrupt practices* *3. HC Oral Observations – 30.05.2026* **Bench Remark** **Legal Significance** *“Involving children in election propaganda was ‘bad’”* *Moral + legal disapproval. Precedent for “undue influence” expansion* *J. GR Swaminathan anecdote: “My grandchild insisted I vote for Vijay”* *Illustrates indirect emotional influence via minors – new dimension of S.123(2)* *“Concerns how political messaging indirectly influences voters through minors”* *HC seeing children as “conduits” of undue influence* *Status*: _No final order. Notices issued earlier. Adjourned – ECI + Parties to file counters._ *4. Arguments – Key Battle Lines* **Party** **Argument** **Petitioner Vasuki** *1. TVK chief encouraged kids to emotionally pressure parents = S.123(2) undue influence 2. Cash distribution rampant 3. ECI inaction violates free & fair elections – Basic Structure 4. Art 14/19/21 violated* **TVK – Sr Adv S. Muralidhar** *1. PIL based on newspaper reports, no evidence 2. Complex Q: Can ECI act post-election on MCC? 3. RP Act doesn’t allow “disqualification” of party, only deregistration in narrow cases 4. “Undue influence” needs strict proof* **DMK – Sr Adv N.R. Elango** *Procedural: Returned candidates not impleaded. EP is proper remedy, not PIL* **ECI – Adv Niranjan Rajagopal** *Sought time. Stand awaited* *5. Legal Issues Framed by HC* 1. *“Undue Influence” S.123(2)*: _Does emotional persuasion via children = “direct/indirect interference with free exercise of electoral right”?_ 2. *ECI Power Post-Poll*: _Can ECI probe MCC violations after result? Art 324 scope vs RP Act election petition._ 3. *PIL Maintainability*: _Can PIL lie for “corrupt practice” when S.80 RP Act provides EP remedy?_ 4. *Party vs Candidate*: _Can political party be disqualified/deregistered for corrupt practice of leader? S.29A vs S.123._ 5. *Child Rights*: _JJ Act S.75 + UNCRC + Art 39(f). Using child in campaign = “mental cruelty”?_ *6. Why This Matters – 2026 Election Law Shift* 1. *Expands “Undue Influence”*: _Traditionally = threat/coercion. HC now looking at “emotional blackmail via kids”._ 2. *Tests Basic Structure*: _Petitioner: Free & fair election = Basic Structure. ECI inaction = constitutional violation._ 3. *Post-Poll ECI Role*: _If HC allows probe, ECI power extends beyond polling day – major shift._ 4. *Celebrity Politics*: _Joseph Vijay case – actor-politicians using fan-base kids. HC putting lens on it._ *7. Connection to Docket* **Case** **Theme** **2026 Development** **#34/#35 VIP Darshan** *“All equal before God” – no privilege* *Now: “All equal in election” – no privilege via kids* **#40 Children in Polls** *General ban on kids* *#41: Specific allegation against CM’s party + inquiry demand* **#37 Junglee Games** *State can ban for public interest* *#41: Court may direct ECI to ban child use for public interest* **#39 3-Month Judgment** *Speedy justice* *#41: Petitioner wants “time-bound inquiry” – speed theme* *2026 Madras HC Doctrine*: _“No VIP in temple, No child in campaign, No delay in court.”_ *8. For HJS/Law Officer Interview* *Q1*: _“Candidate’s child supporters ask voters to vote for ‘uncle’. S.123(2)?”_ *A*: _#41 HC: Prima facie undue influence. Emotional pressure via minor = indirect interference. _Shiv Kirpal 2000_ – undue influence need not be threat, can be moral pressure. JJ Act S.75 also attracted. As RO, report to ECI + Police FIR._ *Q2*: _“Can HC order ECI inquiry after results declared?”_ *A*: _Contested. TVK: No, EP only remedy S.80. Petitioner: Art 226 + Basic Structure. _A.C. Jose 1984_ – ECI has plenary power Art 324. HC may direct probe if ECI failed. Likely outcome: HC asks ECI to decide in 8 weeks._ *Q3*: _“PIL vs Election Petition – which is proper?”_ *A*: _EP for challenging specific result S.100. PIL for systemic failure + ECI inaction. _L. Chandra Kumar 1997_ – HC can examine administrative failure of ECI. Maintainable for guideline/inquiry, not to unseat MLA._ *9. Next Steps in Case* 1. *ECI Counter*: _Will decide if ECI accepts post-poll probe power._ 2. *Evidence*: _Petitioner must move from news reports to affidavits/videos of kids campaigning._ 3. *Possible Outcome*: _HC may 1. Direct ECI guidelines banning child use 2. Order SIT probe 3. Dismiss PIL, relegate to EP._ --- *Case #41 Added*: _Vasuki v ECI – Children in 2026 TN Polls + TVK/CM Vijay + Undue Influence + ECI Power_ *Master Docket*: _41 Cases. 2026 = “Child Rights + Speed + Equality + Electoral Integrity”_ *Want*: *1. “S.123 RP Act – Undue Influence Case Law Chart: Threat vs Emotional Pressure”* OR *2. “Draft ECI Show-Cause to Party for Using Children – Citing #41”* OR *3. “PIL vs Election Petition – Maintainability Note for HJS”*?
