ECI Instructions On Children are binding on a candidate because they carry statutory force, the Madras High Court has held, declining to reject DMK leader Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi’s election petition against TVK MLA Vijayakumar alias Navalpattu S. Viji at the threshold. The allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
Chennai: An election petition that accuses a returned candidate of engaging children in his campaign will now go to trial, with the Madras High Court refusing to reject it at the threshold. In doing so, the Court held that ECI instructions on children, like any instructions given to a candidate under the statutory powers in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, bind the candidate with statutory force [Vijayakumar (A) Navalpattu S. Viji v. Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi].
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu passed the order on October 29, 2026, on an application by Vijayakumar, the TVK MLA from the Thiruverumbur Assembly constituency. He had sought rejection of Election Petition No. 28 of 2026, filed by Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi.
Statutory force, and a question for trial
On the ground relating to children in the campaign, the Court held:
“It is to be noted that instructions given to a candidate in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are binding on the candidate, as it has a statutory force. Material particulars of the violation committed by the applicant had been made and the veracity of such statement could only be gone into at the time of trial.”
The Court added:
“When it is found that there had been a violation of instruction, this Court is of the view that it may have a material effect on the election. Such decision could be only taken after completion of the trial in the election petition.”
What Vijayakumar asked for
His application was moved under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 86 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967.
Counsel Antony R. Julian, for Vijayakumar, pointed out that the election petition raised four grounds but contained no averment on how any of them had materially affected the result. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra, he submitted that without such a pleading the petition need not be sent to trial.
He also cited a Karnataka High Court ruling in Bashiruddin Halhipparga v. Rajasekhar Basavaraj Patil, contending that a mere violation of instructions cannot be a ground to set aside an election, since such instructions do not spell out the consequences of a breach, and at most it could be an election offence.
The election petitioner’s answer
Appearing for Anbil Mahesh, counsel Richardson Wilson relied on S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari. He submitted that the Election Commission’s instructions flow from its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and, when issued in exercise of its statutory functions, bind both the Returning Officer and the candidates. He urged the Court to dismiss the application and take up the trial.
Why Vashist Narain Sharma did not help, and what follows
Justice Kumaresh Babu distinguished Vashist Narain Sharma, noting that the Supreme Court had decided that case after the election petition was finally disposed of on evidence. In the present case, the Court said, the question whether the allegations materially affected the result can arise only once the grounds are substantiated.
Finding the application “devoid of merits”, the Court dismissed it. It directed Vijayakumar, as the returned candidate, to file his reply to the election petition within four weeks, and both sides to furnish their lists of witnesses within two weeks after that.
Why the order matters
The order treats the Election Commission’s instruction against using children in campaigns as more than an advisory: issued under statutory power, it binds the candidate, and a proven breach may be weighed in deciding whether the result was materially affected. It also confirms that an election petition setting out material particulars of an alleged violation will not be rejected at the threshold merely because the link to the result is yet to be proved.
The order is confined to the rejection application. The allegations in the election petition are yet to be tested at trial, Vijayakumar contests them, and the Court has recorded no finding on whether any violation occurred or whether it affected the result.
Case Title: Vijayakumar (A) Navalpattu S. Viji v. Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi [O.A. No. 933 of 2026 in E.L.P. No. 28 of 2026]
Bench: Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 29, 2026
Appearances: Antony R. Julian for the applicant/returned candidate; Richardson Wilson for the respondent/election petitioner