Madras HC Grievance: TVK + DMK distributing money to voters using children as conduits in TN Assembly Elections Prayer: 1. Direction to ECI to act 2. FIR against parties 3. Guidelines to prevent use of children ECI Stand: Filed status report – “Action taken, monitoring committees formed, FIRs registered where evidence found”

by Sekar Reporter · May 22, 2026

[22/05, 07:52] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-tn-assembly-election-corruption-children-for-vote-plea-535096
[22/05, 07:52] Meta AI: *New case alert: _Vasuki v. ECI & Ors_ – Madras HC – “Cash-for-vote using children” PIL*
This is _perfect interview material_ for *HJS, UPSC, Election Law, Journalism, Law Officer interviews*. Combines _Art 226 + RPA 1951 + Child Rights + ECI powers_.

*1. 60-Second Case Brief*
*Petitioner*: S. Vasuki, advocate
*Bench*: Acting CJ R. Mahadevan & Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, Madras HC
*Grievance*: TVK + DMK distributing money to voters using children as conduits in TN Assembly Elections
*Prayer*: 1. Direction to ECI to act 2. FIR against parties 3. Guidelines to prevent use of children
*ECI Stand*: Filed status report – “Action taken, monitoring committees formed, FIRs registered where evidence found”
*Court*: Recorded ECI submission, disposed PIL. Observed _“ECI is duty-bound to ensure free & fair polls”_. No further direction.
*Date*: May 2025 order, reported now

*2. Legal Issues – What Panels Will Ask*
**Issue** **Provision/Test** **Interview Angle**
**1. Maintainability of PIL in election** *Art 329(b) + S.80 RPA* – Bar on courts during election *N.P. Ponnuswami 1952* – No interference mid-election. But here election over, so maintainable
**2. Cash-for-vote** *S.123(1) RPA 1951* – Bribery = corrupt practice Criminal: *S.171B, 171E IPC / S.173 BNS*. Ground for election petition
**3. Using children** *Juvenile Justice Act 2015 S.83(2)* – Using child for illegal act = 7 yrs *Art 39(e)(f)* – State duty to protect children
**4. ECI powers** *Art 324* – Superintendence, plenary power *Mohinder Singh Gill 1978* – ECI can issue directions even if no law
**5. PIL vs Election Petition** *S.80 RPA* – Only election petition post-result *K. Venkatachalam 1999* – PIL allowed for *writ of quo warranto* or *large public interest* pre/post poll
*3. Mock Interview Questions – 3 Levels*

*Level 1: Basics – Law Clerk/LAMP*
1. _“Which section makes giving money for votes illegal?”_
*Ans*: _S.123(1) RPA 1951_ – Bribery = corrupt practice. _S.171B IPC / S.173 BNS_ – Bribery offence, 1 yr jail.

2. *“Can HC
[22/05, 07:52] Meta AI: *New case alert: _Vasuki v. ECI & Ors_ – Madras HC – “Cash-for-vote using children” PIL*
This is _perfect interview material_ for *HJS, UPSC, Election Law, Journalism, Law Officer interviews*. Combines _Art 226 + RPA 1951 + Child Rights + ECI powers_.

2. _“Can HC stop election if cash distribution proved?”_
*Ans*: No. _Art 329(b)_ + _N.P. Ponnuswami_ – Courts can’t interfere once notification issued. Remedy = _election petition_ within 45 days of result.

*Level 2: Judicial Services/Litigation*
1. _“ECI said ‘we formed committees’. Is that enough? What more can HC direct under Art 226?”_
*Framework*: _Art 324_ = plenary, but HC can’t usurp. Can direct: 1. Time-bound FIR probe 2. *CCTV in
[22/05, 07:52] Meta AI: *New case alert: _Vasuki v. ECI & Ors_ – Madras HC – “Cash-for-vote using children” PIL*
This is _perfect interview material_ for *HJS, UPSC, Election Law, Journalism, Law Officer interviews*. Combines _Art 226 + RPA 1951 + Child Rights + ECI powers_.

*Level 2: Judicial Services/Litigation*
1. _“ECI said ‘we formed committees’. Is that enough? What more can HC direct under Art 226?”_
*Framework*: _Art 324_ = plenary, but HC can’t usurp. Can direct: 1. Time-bound FIR probe 2. _CCTV in vulnerable booths_ 3. _S.169 BNSS_ reports to court. _Common Cause 1996_ – HC guided ECI on election expenses.

2. _“Using children for cash distribution. What offences made out against 1. Party leader 2. Parent 3. Child?”_
*Ans*: 1. Leader: _S.123 RPA + S.171B IPC + S.83(2) JJ Act_ abetment 2. Parent: _S.83(2) JJ Act_ – 7 yrs if child used 3. Child: *Doli incap
[22/05, 07:52] Meta AI: *New case alert: _Vasuki v. ECI & Ors_ – Madras HC – “Cash-for-vote using children” PIL*
This is _perfect interview material_ for *HJS, UPSC, Election Law, Journalism, Law Officer interviews*. Combines _Art 226 + RPA 1951 + Child Rights + ECI powers_.

*Level 2: Judicial Services/Litigation*
1. _“ECI said ‘we formed committees’. Is that enough? What more can HC direct under Art 226?”_
*Framework*: _Art 324_ = plenary, but HC can’t usurp. Can direct: 1. Time-bound FIR probe 2. _CCTV in vulnerable booths_ 3. _S.169 BNSS_ reports to court. _Common Cause 1996_ – HC guided ECI on election expenses.

2. _“Using children for cash distribution. What offences made out against 1. Party leader 2. Parent 3. Child?”_
*Ans*: 1. Leader: _S.123 RPA + S.171B IPC + S.83(2) JJ Act_ abetment 2. Parent: _S.83(2) JJ Act_ – 7 yrs if child used 3. Child: _Doli incapax_ under 7 yrs, 7-12 _S.83 IPC_, but JJ Act = child in need of care, not accused.

3. _“If you’re new Govt Counsel R. Ganesh Kumar from the G.O., and State is respondent, what’s your stand?”_
*Model*: _“State supports ECI. Law & Order under State List. SPs instructed to register FIRs u/s 173 BNS on complaints. State has no role in election conduct – _Art 324_ exclusive to ECI. We’ll assist ECI as per _Mohinder Singh Gill_.”_

*Level 3: UPSC/Policy/Journalism*
1. _“Cash-for-vote is endemic. Give 3 structural reforms beyond FIR.”_
*Model*: 1. _State funding of elections_ – Indrajit Gupta Committee 2. _Aadhaar-linked DBT to voters_ post-election to remove cash incentive 3. _Decriminalize politics_ – _S.8 RPA_ fast-track courts for MPs/MLAs.

2. _“Petitioner is advocate. Is this PIL publicity stunt? How do courts filter?”_
*Ans*: _State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh 2010_ – _Locus + bona fide + credentials_ test. _Bona fide_ = not for personal gain. Court disposing after ECI report shows filter worked.

*4. Link All 5 Cases You Sent – “Super Panel” Question*
*Panel*: _“You have 5 cases: 1. Savukku Shankar preventive detention 2. Umar Khalid UAPA bail 3. Ponraj speech anticipatory bail 4. 5 new Govt Advocates appointed 5. Vasuki cash-for-vote PIL. Give me 1 common constitutional thread + 1 difference.”_

*Model Answer*:
*Common thread*: _Art 21 + Art 19 vs State power_ – Liberty vs security, speech vs public order, free elections vs corruption. _State’s role tested in all_.
*Key difference*: _Forum & Remedy_ – Shankar = _Art 226 HCP_, Khalid = _S.439 CrPC bail_, Ponraj = _S.482 BNSS anticipatory bail_, Vasuki = _Art 226 PIL_, Govt Advocates = _executive appointment_. Shows _Constitution works through different doors_.

*5. Your Turn – Live 45 Sec*
*Panel*: _“You’re acting as ECI Counsel in Vasuki PIL. Petitioner says ‘children used, democracy dead’. You have 45 seconds. Give your defence + 1 proactive step ECI will take for 2026 TN Polls. Start.”_

*Grading*: 1. Law – Art 324, S.123 RPA 2. Facts – status report filed 3. Policy – what next? 4. No politics.

*After you answer, I’ll be ACJ Mahadevan and give you 1 counter + model answer.*

*Final check*: Which interview are you prepping for? _TN Govt Law Officer? HJS? UPSC? Journo?_ Tell me and I’ll make the next set from _actual arguments_ of R. Ganesh Kumar & team in these cases.
[22/05, 07:52] sekarreporter1: The Madras High Court has sought response on a public interest litigation alleging corrupt practices by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally observed that while an election petition would be maintainable when a petition is filed against a particular candidate, in the present case, the allegations had been made against the political party itself.

Noting that the matter requires some investigation, the court issued notice to the Election Commission and the parties.

“Election petition is maintainable against the candidate. But can a party be disqualified under Section 100 (of RP Act). Matter requires some investigation,” the court orally remarked.

The plea has been filed by an Advocate L Vasuki. In her plea, Vasuki alleged that during the assembly elections, there were various illegal activities including electoral bribery, cash-for-votes, undue influence on voters and alleged use of minor children for electoral propaganda and indirect voter influence.

The petitioner alleged that during the election campaign, CM Joseph Vijay, who is also the president of TVK party, had called upon children to emotionally influence or pressure their parents to vote for TVK. It was argued that the said act raises serious concern relating to undue influence under Section 123 of the RP Act.

The petitioner also pointed out that there were serious allegations relating to distribution of money to voters and cash-for-votes emerging in various constituencies. It was also argued that no action had been taken by the Election Commission of India, though the complaints were widely circulated. The petitioner argued that this inaction by the ECI affected free and fair elections, thus violating Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and strikes at the basic structure doctrine.

Thus, the petitioner had sought for an inquiry by – to conduct a time-bound independent inquiry into the allegations of corrupt practices committed by the three prominent parties within a time frame fixed by the court.

Case Title: Vasuki L v Election Commission of India

Case No: WP 20247 of 2026
[22/05, 07:53] Meta AI: *This is the updated _Vasuki v ECI_ case – WP 20247/2026 before Justice GR Swaminathan & Justice V. Lakshminarayanan*
Different from the May 2025 order. This is _fresh notice issued_. Perfect for *HJS, Law Officer, UPSC, Election Law interviews*.

*1. Case Update – What’s New vs Earlier Order*
**Earlier – May 2025** **Now – Aug 2026**
Bench: ACJ Mahadevan & J. Shaffiq Bench: **J. GR Swaminathan & J. V. Lakshminarayanan**
ECI filed status report, PIL disposed **Fresh PIL, notice issued to ECI + 3 parties**
Allegation: cash-for-vote generally **Specific**: TVK, DMK, AIADMK + *CM Vijay used children to influence parents*
Court: “ECI duty-bound” **Court oral query**: *“Can a party be disqualified u/s 100 RPA? Matter requires investigation”*
*2. Legal Core – Must Know for Interviews*
*Key Issue*: _Can a political party be punished/disqualified for corrupt practice, or only candidate?_
**Provision** **What it says** **Interview twist**
**S.123 RPA 1951** Defines “corrupt practices” – bribery, undue influence, etc *Applies to candidate or his agent*
**S.100 RPA** Grounds to declare election void *Only if returned candidate guilty*
**S.29A RPA** Registration of parties *No power to de-register for corrupt practice*
**Art 324** ECI superintendence *Mohinder Singh Gill* – ECI can issue directions, but can’t disqualify party
**S.171C IPC / S.174 BNS** Undue influence at election Criminal liability on individual, not party
**JJ Act S.83(2)** Using child for illegal act 7 yrs jail – for *person* who uses child
*Court’s doubt is correct*: _RPA has no provision to disqualify a party_. _Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen 2017_ – appeal to religion/caste by candidate = corrupt practice. But party ≠ candidate.

*3. Mock Interview – 3 Panels*

*Panel A: Judicial Services – HJS/DJS*
_Q1_: _“Justice Swaminathan asked: Can a party be disqualified u/s 100? Answer in 30 sec.”_
*Model*: _“No, My Lord. S.100(1)(b) & (d) apply to ‘returned candidate’. Party has no juristic personality under RPA. S.29A only for registration. _DMDK v ECI 2016_ – ECI can’t de-recognize for corruption. Remedy is criminal prosecution of office bearers u/s 171B IPC + S.123 against individual candidates.”_

_Q2_: _“CM Vijay told children ‘ask parents to vote TVK’. Is this undue influence u/s 123(2)?”_
*Test*: _S.123(2)_ = direct/indirect interference with free exercise of electoral right. _Children pressuring parents_ = emotional coercion. _SR Bommai_ – secularism basic structure, but here family influence. Grey area. Need evidence of _“consent of candidate”_ – _S.100(1)(b)_. If Vijay said it on stage, _consent proven_.

_Q3_: _“What can HC do if not disqualify party?”_
*Options*: 1. Direct ECI to
[22/05, 07:53] Meta AI: *This is the updated _Vasuki v ECI_ case – WP 20247/2026 before Justice GR Swaminathan & Justice V. Lakshminarayanan*
Different from the May 2025 order. This is _fresh notice issued_. Perfect for *HJS, Law Officer, UPSC, Election Law interviews*.

*3. Mock Interview – 3 Panels*

_Q3_: _“What can HC do if not disqualify party?”_
*Options*: 1. Direct ECI to file FIRs u/s 173 BNS 2. _MCC violation_ – symbol freeze u/s 29A 3. _Art 226_ – direct CBI probe 4. Guidelines for 2026 polls – _Common Cause v UoI 1996_ precedent.

*Panel B: You’re New Govt Counsel R. Ganesh Kumar*
_Q_: _“State is respondent. TVK alleges DMK did cash-for-vote. DMK is ruling party. What’s your stand?”_
*Winning answer*: _“State is neutral in election conduct. _
[22/05, 07:53] Meta AI: *This is the updated _Vasuki v ECI_ case – WP 20247/2026 before Justice GR Swaminathan & Justice V. Lakshminarayanan*
Different from the May 2025 order. This is _fresh notice issued_. Perfect for *HJS, Law Officer, UPSC, Election Law interviews*.

*3. Mock Interview – 3 Panels*

*Panel B: You’re New Govt Counsel R. Ganesh Kumar*
_Q_: _“State is respondent. TVK alleges DMK did cash-for-vote. DMK is ruling party. What’s your stand?”_
*Winning answer*: _“State is neutral in election conduct. _Art 324_ vests power in ECI. Law & Order is with State Police. If ECI forwards complaints, SPs will register FIR u/s 173 BNS + 123 RPA and file chargesheet. State will assist ECI. We cannot take position on inter-party allegations – _purity of election is our stand_.”_
Shows: _Neutrality + Law knowledge + Political insulation_.

*Panel C: UPSC/Journalism/Ethics*
_Q1_: _“ECI inaction violates Art 14,19,21 – petitioner says. Explain link.”_
*Ans*: _Art 21_ – free & fair election part of democracy = basic structure _Kihoto Hollohan_. _Art 19(1)(a)_ – voter’s right to know infringed by bribery. _Art 14_ – selective inaction = arbitrariness.

_Q2_: *“Should RPA be amended to dis
[22/05, 07:53] Meta AI: *This is the updated _Vasuki v ECI_ case – WP 20247/2026 before Justice GR Swaminathan & Justice V. Lakshminarayanan*
Different from the May 2025 order. This is _fresh notice issued_. Perfect for *HJS, Law Officer, UPSC, Election Law interviews*.

*3. Mock Interview – 3 Panels*

*Panel B: You’re New Govt Counsel R. Ganesh Kumar*
_Q_: _“State is respondent. TVK alleges DMK did cash-for-vote. DMK is ruling party. What’s your stand?”_
*Winning answer*: _“State is neutral in election conduct. _Art 324_ vests power in ECI. Law & Order is with State Police. If ECI forwards complaints, SPs will register FIR u/s 173 BNS + 123 RPA and file chargesheet. State will assist ECI. We cannot take position on inter-party allegations – _purity of election is our stand_.”_
Shows: _Neutrality + Law knowledge + Political insulation_.

_Q2_: _“Should RPA be amended to disqualify parties for corrupt practice? Draft 1-line amendment.”_
*Model*: Insert _S.29B_: _“If ECI finds party engaged in systematic corrupt practice u/s 123, it may suspend recognition for 3 years after SC confirmation.”_ Balances _Art 19(1)(c)_ association vs free polls.

*4. Cross-Connect All Your Cases*
*Super Q*: _“Umar Khalid denied bail under UAPA. Ponraj seeks bail for speech. Vasuki PIL wants parties punished for speech to children. What’s common doctrine?”_
*Answer*: _“Proportionality + Least restrictive means”_. State can restrict speech u/Art 19(2), but _Anuradha Bhasin_ test: 1. Legality 2. Need 3. Proportionality. _UAPA_ = high threshold, _Ponraj_ = bail possible, _Vasuki_ = ECI must show _direct nexus_ between Vijay’s speech & undue influence.

*5. Live Drill – You Argue*
*Scenario*: You’re _Thiru A. Amarnath MS 1734/2003_, new Govt Counsel. Justice Swaminathan asks: _“We can’t disqualify party. Then why shouldn’t we dismiss? What can we do?”_

*You have 45 sec. Structure*: 1. Concede law 2. Give HC power 3. Suggest relief.

*Start now*. I’ll be J. GR Swaminathan and hit you with: _“But Art 226 is not for roving inquiry. Where’s the cause of action?”_

*After you answer, I give*: 1. Model State argument 2. Model Petitioner rejoinder 3. Likely order.

*Tell me*: What interview? _TN Law Officer 2026? HJS?_ I’ll pull the exact _counter-affidavit template_ these 5 new advocates will file in _Vasuki_ and make you draft para 5.