A margin of 14,034 votes in Salem North stands: children’s campaign videos may be in bad taste, but they are not ground to void election under the Representation of the People Act, the Madras High Court has held.
Chennai: Turning away at the threshold an election petition by the defeated Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate against the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA returned from the 89 Salem North Assembly Constituency, the Madras High Court on Thursday (October 15) held that the use of children in the TVK campaign, and the party president’s appeal to children to persuade their parents to vote for the party, did not disclose any ground to set aside the election. [Election Petition No. 46 of 2026 (Salem North Assembly Constituency)]
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the order, allowing the returned candidate’s application (O.A. No. 890 of 2026) to reject the election petition for want of a cause of action. Orders had been reserved on September 15, 2026.
Distaste is not a cause of action
The Court was critical of the practice itself. It said:
“The entire act of involving tender children is in bad taste.”
Such conduct reflected “poor parenting”, it added, and making reels out of it was “cheap and politically motivated”. Whether to prohibit it, or to make it a ground to set aside an election, was, in the Court’s words, “a larger debate for the nation and Parliament to consider”.
Even assuming every allegation to be true, the Court concluded:
“I am unable to hold that the Election Petition discloses a cause of action for the grant of relief to the election petitioner.”
The application was allowed and the election petition rejected, with no order as to costs. The petitioner’s security deposit is to be refunded. No response from the DMK to the ruling was available at the time of writing.
ALSO READ: Reviewing Framework to Prevent Use of Children in Election Campaigns: ECI Informed Madras HC
How the Court dealt with each ground
As a preliminary point, the Court held that an application to reject an election petition must be decided on merits even if it is filed after the written statement, because the court has a duty to examine the petition independently.
A breach of the Election Commission circular, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held, does not fall under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). Relying on Jitu Patnaik and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, the Court said that even if the circular has statutory force under Article 324, it is not an “Order” made under the Act.
As for the speech, the Court found that the appeal was not made by the candidate, his agent, or any person acting with his consent, as Section 100(1)(b) requires. Any breach of Election Commission directives, it said, was a matter for separate action, such as under paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols Order, and not a ground for setting aside the election.
On undue influence, the Court read Section 123(2) strictly. It noted that the children did not own phones or make reels themselves, and that adults arranged and circulated the content. The Court observed:
“At best, it can be seen as convincing adults to vote for the party and the candidate.”
If adults chose to vote a certain way after being pestered by their children, the Court said, that was still their own choice, and their free will was not overpowered.
The legal position
An election can be set aside under Section 100 only on the grounds the Act lists. Section 100(1)(b) covers a corrupt practice committed by the returned candidate, his election agent, or any other person with their consent. Section 100(1)(d)(ii) covers a corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by someone else, but only where it is shown to have materially affected the result.
Section 100(1)(d)(iv) covers non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act, or rules and orders made under it. Undue influence under Section 123(2) means interference with the free exercise of electoral right. In Shiv Kirpal Singh v. V.V. Giri (1970), the Supreme Court held that mere persuasion or canvassing is not undue influence; the influence must overpower the voter’s will.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against DMK’s S. Regupathy For Lack Of Material Facts
The petition and the numbers
The TVK, founded by actor C. Joseph Vijay, won the April 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election, and Vijay is now the Chief Minister. In Salem North, the TVK candidate polled 85,710 votes against 71,676 for the DMK candidate, a margin of 14,034 votes. The DMK candidate then moved the High Court seeking to declare the election void under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 123(2), which defines undue influence as a corrupt practice.
The petition raised two grounds. First, it alleged that children were used in campaigning in breach of an Election Commission circular on the subject; a complaint was made by a member of the DMK legal wing, and a separate case (Crime No. 84 of 2026) was registered on a complaint by an official in charge of a video surveillance team. Second, it alleged undue influence through a speech by the TVK president at YMCA Grounds, Nandanam, on April 21, 2026, in which children were allegedly asked to persuade, or pester, their parents to vote for the party, together with social media videos of children doing so. Vijay was not a party to the petition.
The returned candidate contested the claims and sought rejection of the petition at the threshold. The allegations were not tested at trial, since the Court assumed them to be true for deciding the application.
The use of children in the 2026 campaign has been before the High Court earlier as well. In May 2026, the Court sought the Election Commission’s response to a petition alleging that the TVK used children to influence voters, and in July the Commission told the Court it was reviewing its framework to strengthen restrictions on the practice. Separately, election petitions against Vijay’s own wins from Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East are pending, and orders on his applications to dismiss them were reserved by Justice V. Lakshminarayanan on October 14.
Case Title: Election Petition No. 46 of 2026 (Salem North Assembly Constituency), DMK candidate v. TVK returned candidate and others (descriptive title)
Case No.: O.A. No. 890 of 2026 in E.L.P. No. 46 of 2026
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
Date of Order: October 15, 2026 (reserved September 15, 2026)
Appearances: Senior Counsel N.R. Elango with A.S. Aswin Prasanna, Advocate G. Murugendran, and Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan for the Returning Officer.