Madras High Court: Children's Campaign Use Not Grounds for Election Invalidation

• The Madras High Court ruled that using children in election campaigns, though inappropriate, is not a current ground for invalidating an election.
• Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy criticized the practice as 'bad taste' and 'politically motivated' but noted it doesn't constitute 'undue influence' under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• The ruling came in the case of K Sivakumar v R Rajendran, rejecting a petition challenging the 2026 election of TVK candidate R Rajendran.
• The court suggested that Parliament should consider legislative changes to either ban the practice or make it a formal ground for election invalidation.

While the Madras High Court strongly condemned the use of children in election campaigns as being in 'bad taste,' it clarified that such actions do not currently constitute a legal basis for invalidating an election.

The Madras High Court recently determined that while the involvement of children in political party election campaigns is highly inappropriate, it does not, by itself, provide sufficient grounds to invalidate an election. This ruling came in the case of K Sivakumar v R Rajendran, where an election petition sought to overturn the victory of Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Rajendran in the Salem North Assembly constituency during the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, presiding over the matter, expressed strong disapproval of the practice. The court specifically criticized the use of minors to influence the voting decisions of their parents, particularly through social media videos. Despite this condemnation, the petition challenging the election outcome was ultimately rejected.

A central aspect of the election petition involved arguments that the use of children constituted undue influence, a recognized basis for voiding an election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the Madras High Court concluded that such persuasive tactics, even when involving children, could not be automatically categorized as undue influence as defined by the statute. This interpretation meant that the specific actions described did not meet the established election petition grounds India currently recognizes for setting aside a result.

The court's decision highlighted a gap in the existing legal framework regarding the use of children in political activities. While acknowledging the ethical concerns, Justice Chakravarthy clarified that the current provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, do not explicitly list this particular conduct as a reason for election invalidation. Therefore, despite the court's moral objections, it was legally constrained from voiding the election on this basis.

In its judgment, the Madras High Court emphasized that the broader issue of involving young children in political campaigns is a matter requiring national debate and legislative consideration. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy articulated that the entire act of engaging tender children in such activities is in 'bad taste,' suggesting it reflects 'poor parenting' and that creating 'reels' from these interactions is both 'cheap' and 'politically motivated.'

The court explicitly stated that it falls to lawmakers in Parliament to determine whether such practices should be prohibited outright or if they should be formally established as grounds for setting aside an election. This judicial suggestion points towards potential future amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which could introduce new compliance requirements for candidates and parties, thereby altering the landscape for Madras High Court children election invalidation cases in the future.

Lawyers advising political parties or candidates in India should note that while the Madras High Court views the use of children in election campaigns as inappropriate, it currently does not constitute a ground for invalidating an election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, the Court has highlighted this as an area for potential legislative reform, meaning future changes could introduce new compliance risks or grounds for challenging election results.

Source: Original reporting via Bar & Bench