THOUGH, in the judgement of the Election Petition - K Sivakumar v. R Rajendran and 13 others, delivered on October 15, 2026, Justice D Bhartha Chakravarthy, at the Madras High Court, has observed that the entire act of involving tender children in election, is in bad taste, and the tasks they were allowed to perform reflect poor parenting; making reels out of it is cheap and politically motivated. This is a larger debate for the nation and Parliament to consider, including whether to prohibit it or make it ground to set aside the election. In this case Original Application (OA) is filed praying for rejection of the Election Petition , which has been presented before the HC to declare election of the first respondent- Rajendran R as Member of the Madras Legislative Assembly from Salem North Constituency in 2026, as null and void under section 100(1)(b) read with section 123(2), 100(1)(d) (ii) read with section 13(2), and 100(1)(d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and consequently, to declare the petitioner as duly elected candidate for the said Constituency.

 

The Election Petitioner contested as a candidate of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) with rising Sun symbol. The winning candidate belonged to ultimate winner TVK Party. He won securing 85,710 votes against 71,676 votes obtained by the Election Petitioner. The Election petition was filed primarily on two grounds. By way of first ground, it was stated that on April 11, 2026, one M Karthikeyan of the DMK Legal Wing lodged a complaint that children were used for campaigning on behalf of the returned candidate. The Complaint was forwarded to the Returning Officer. Two videos showing children taking part in the rallies were enclosed. Such conduct materially affects the election. It is further stated that one Manikandan, who was in-charge of the Video Surveillance team, had also found that members of the political party TVK, were indulging in acts constituting offences under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. They were using children for election campaigning activities. The use of children clearly indicates that the sane was carried out with knowledge and consent of the returned candidate. Therefore, it was pleaded that the same vitiates the election, inasmuas it violates the circular of the February 5, 2024 issued by the Election Commission of India in the form of binding guidelines. The second ground pleaded is of corrupt practice.

 

This is the basis for ground of relief and accordingly this question was answered by the Court: In this regard, it is clear that there can be no two views on child labour. Directly or indirectly, in any form whatsoever, child labour is prohibited and children cannot be employed in manual or other labour in relation to any election-related activity, whether by the election machinery, political parties or candidates. However, the debate concerns the campaign and canvassing. One view is that everything will not suddenly pop up when the bell rings on attaining age of 18 years and many great political leaders have addressed political platforms and have delivered fiery powerful speeches even during their high school days. People advocating this view would state that everyone participates in politics from cradle to grave. However, the counterpoint is that when political parties do the same and children are drawn out from their educational institutions to attend political meetings etc., which spoils their careers and mindset, it is held that the minors should not, in any manner be involved in campaigns, rallies etc. While it can be contended that culturally and more so in modern times, children exert a great deal of influence over their parents’ choices, the question that arises in instant case is whether the political party leader’s campaigning by the children, in turn requesting them to campaign to their parents on his behalf would amount to undue influence. In this regard, the term ‘undue influence’ in section 123 of the Act is phrased with “that is to say’ and therefore, with the definition has to be strictly construed.

 

The issue was considered in detail by the Supreme Court in Shiv Kirpal Singh’s case. A careful reading of the paragraph numbers 249, 254, 261 and 296 makes it clear that emphasis is on interference with the ‘exercise of the electoral right’ with ‘free will and volition.’ While persuasion or canvassing will not amount to interference, if it reaches the point ‘tyranny over the mind overpowering the volition without convincing the judgement’, it would be undue influence. The Supreme Court has explained the legal position in its decision of the case- Krishnamoorthy v. Shivkumar and others-(2015) 3 SCC 467 in paragraphs 58 to 58.12. In this context, it must be noted that children of tender age are involved in these videographs.

 

They neither possess mobile phones nor they can make reels. The adults have shown these children the appeal of the leader, made them perform the acts, reels and popularised them. Thus, it cannot be seen as the tender chidren’s sole act of committing tyranny over the mind, overpowering volition. At best, it can be seen as convincing adults to vote for the party and the candidate. It is not based upon informed consideration of the candidates or the way adults are supposed to make choices in a democracy. But even if the materials presented are true and correct, the familial bond and emotion are exploited to sway the choice and cannot be elevated to a status where adults’ free will is overpowered.

 

On the other hand, if the adults in the given situation take umbrage at the children’s pestering to give themselves an excuse to make a particular choice, that is again their volition and does not overpower their free will. Accordingly, the plea, children’s consequential actions, and the adults’ disclosure and behaviour do not disclose a triable issue of undue influence, even assuming that the allegations contained in the Election Petition, are uncontroverted and true, the High Court has stated that it was unable to hold that the election petition discloses cause of action for the grant of relief to the Election Petitioner. In result, the High Court has allowed the OA and rejected the election petition. Security deposit will be refunded to the petitioner.