Should children be used in election campaigns? A Madras HC ruling opens the debate
In one line: The Madras High Court found the use of children to sway parents' votes 'in bad taste' but not a legal ground to void an election, and called it 'a larger debate for the nation and Parliament to consider'.
Published 23 October 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Hindu's opinion page on 23 October 2026 debated whether children should be involved in political campaigning, following a Madras High Court ruling. On 15 October 2026 Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy rejected an election petition filed by a DMK candidate against the TVK MLA elected from Salem North in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election (K. Sivakumar v. Rajendran R). The petition said that on 21 April 2026 TVK leader Joseph Vijay, now Chief Minister, had appealed to children to urge their parents and families to vote for his party, and that videos then showed children pressing, and in some cases threatening, relatives to vote for the candidate. It argued that this was undue influence, a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The court held that an election petition is a statutory remedy and can succeed only on the grounds in Section 100 of the Act. Undue influence must be committed by the candidate, the candidate's agent, or another person with their consent, and the leader's appeal was not shown to have the candidate's consent. Even if children pestered their parents, adults made their own choice, so the petition disclosed no cause of action. The court called the use of children 'in bad taste' and said the videos reflected 'poor parenting'. Whether such conduct should be banned, or made a ground to set aside an election, was 'a larger debate for the nation and Parliament to consider'.
The Election Commission had issued a circular on 5 February 2024 asking parties not to use children in any form of campaigning, including carrying them at rallies or using them to recite poems, songs or other spoken words. The court held that even if the circular had the force of law, it could not be a ground to void the election. The debate on the opinion page turns on two ideas: children's right to express views under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the concern that using a child's attachment to a celebrity leader to pressure parents imports consumer 'pester power' tactics into politics. Supporters of reform seek a precisely drawn law that separates genuine participation from manipulation.
Prelims facts
- On 15 October 2026 the Madras High Court held that using children to persuade parents to vote is 'in bad taste' but not a ground to void an election.
- Undue influence under Section 123(2) of the RP Act must be by the candidate, the agent or a person acting with their consent.
- An election can be set aside only on the grounds in Section 100 of the RP Act; appeals lie to the Supreme Court under Section 116A.
- The Election Commission's circular of 5 February 2024 asks parties not to use children in any form of campaigning.
- The court left it to Parliament to decide whether to prohibit the practice or make it a ground to set aside an election.
Quick recall
- Date of the Madras HC ruling on children in the TVK campaign?
- 15 October 2026, by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy.
- What did the court call the use of children in the campaign?
- 'In bad taste', reflecting 'poor parenting', but not a ground to void the election.
- Which section of the RP Act makes undue influence a corrupt practice?
- Section 123(2).
- Which section lists the grounds for declaring an election void?
- Section 100 of the RP Act, 1951.
- Under which section does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court in an election petition?
- Section 116A of the RP Act.
- Date of the EC circular asking parties not to use children in campaigns?
- 5 February 2024.
- Under which provision has the EC said it would act against recognised parties breaching its children advisory?
- Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
- When did India ratify the UNCRC?
- 11 December 1992.
Prelims practice question
With reference to election disputes in India, consider the following statements:
1. An election to a State Legislative Assembly can be challenged by an election petition in the High Court.
2. Undue influence is a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Violation of an Election Commission advisory is by itself a ground in the Act for declaring an election void.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only. 1 is correct: election petitions are tried by High Courts. 2 is correct: Section 123(2) lists undue influence as a corrupt practice. 3 is wrong: the Madras High Court held that even if the EC's 2024 circular had the force of law, it would not be a ground to void the election.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Electoral disputes, corrupt practices under the RP Act and the Election Commission's role
- How to use this
Cite the October 2026 Madras High Court ruling as a recent case showing that election petitions succeed only on Section 100 grounds and that corrupt practices need the candidate's consent.
- Election petitions are tried by the High Court; in K. Sivakumar v. Rajendran R (2026), the Madras HC rejected a petition for disclosing no cause of action.
- Undue influence under Section 123(2) must be by the candidate, agent or someone with their consent; a party leader's appeal to children did not qualify.
- Appeal against a High Court decision lies to the Supreme Court under Section 116A of the RP Act.
- How to use this
Use the EC's 2024 children advisory and the Madras ruling to show the limits of non-statutory EC guidance, a key theme in debates on the Model Code of Conduct.
- The EC's 5 February 2024 circular bars use of children in campaigning, but the Madras HC held it cannot be a ground to void an election.
- The EC links enforcement against recognised parties to paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols Order, 1968.
The court stressed that minors have no electoral rights; this question tests the legal nature of the right to vote in India.
Mains practice question
The use of children in election campaigns raises questions of electoral ethics that existing law does not answer. In the light of a recent Madras High Court ruling, examine the legal position and suggest a way forward. (150 words)
Model answer
On 15 October 2026 the Madras High Court rejected an election petition alleging that a party leader's appeal to children to sway their parents amounted to undue influence, while calling the practice 'in bad taste'.
Legal position
- An election petition is a statutory remedy; grounds are limited to Section 100 of the RP Act, 1951.
- Undue influence (Section 123(2)) must be by the candidate, agent or someone with their consent; the leader's appeal was not linked to the candidate.
- Adults retain free choice even if children pester them.
- The EC's 5 February 2024 circular is advisory; the court held it cannot void an election.
Concerns
- Children have no electoral rights, yet are used to exploit family emotion.
- Exposure of minors to public pressure.
Way forward
- Parliament could define such use as an electoral offence, as the court suggested.
- Link the EC advisory to the Symbols Order (paragraph 16A) for recognised parties.
- Distinguish genuine participation (UNCRC Article 12) from manipulation.
A narrow, clear law would protect children without curbing legitimate political expression.
The basics
Why this matters
Children cannot vote, yet parties increasingly use them in rallies, videos and social media to reach their parents. A Madras High Court ruling of 15 October 2026 called such use 'in bad taste' but held that it is not a ground to set aside an election, leaving the question to Parliament. The case is a compact lesson in how the Representation of the People Act, 1951 handles Undue influence under Section 123(2) and Election petitions under the RP Act.
The case in brief
- 15 February 2024Election Commission circular asks parties not to use children in any form of campaigning
- 221 April 2026TVK leader Vijay appeals to children to urge their families to vote for his party
- 3CampaignVideos show children pressing, and sometimes threatening, relatives to vote for the TVK candidate in Salem North
- 4After the resultA DMK candidate files an election petition alleging undue influence
- 515 October 2026Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy rejects the petition for disclosing no cause of action
Why the petition failed
An election can be set aside only on the grounds listed in Section 100 of the Act. Undue influence counts as a corrupt practice only if committed by the candidate, the candidate's agent, or someone acting with the candidate's or election agent's consent. The party leader's appeal was not shown to have the candidate's consent. The court also reasoned that children's persuasion does not override an adult voter's free choice.
- Children have a right to express views on matters affecting them (UNCRC Article 12)
- Early political awareness builds active citizens
- A blanket ban may be hard to define and enforce
- Children cannot vote and cannot make informed political choices
- Using them to pressure parents exploits family emotion
- Videos expose minors to public pressure and online abuse
The rules today
The Election Commission's 2024 advisory on children has no penalty of its own. India is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects a child's right to be heard but also requires protection from exploitation.
Go deeper
Why it matters for UPSC
GS2 asks about the Representation of the People Act, electoral reforms and the Election Commission. The case also touches child rights and electoral ethics.
The core idea
Election disputes are decided through Election petitions under the RP Act, on limited statutory grounds. The petitioner alleged Undue influence under Section 123(2), but the court found no link to the candidate. The Election Commission's 2024 advisory on children is guidance without a statutory penalty. Supporters of child participation cite the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Numbers and dates to remember
- ECI circular on children: 5 February 2024.
- Vijay's appeal to children: 21 April 2026.
- Judgment: 15 October 2026, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, Madras High Court.
- Case: K. Sivakumar v. Rajendran R (OA No. 890 of 2026 in ELP No. 46 of 2026).
- India ratified the UNCRC on 11 December 1992.
Where to go next
- Election petitions under the RP Act: how an election is challenged.
- Undue influence under Section 123(2): what counts as a corrupt practice.
- Election Commission's 2024 advisory on children: what the ECI asked parties to avoid.
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: the right to be heard and to be protected.
Go deeper: who should draw the line, courts, the EC or Parliament?
What the court said. The court held that an election petition is a statutory remedy available only on grounds in Section 100 of the Act. Undue influence under Section 123(2) requires interference by the candidate, the agent, or another person with their consent. The leader's appeal could not be attributed to the candidate. Even if children pestered their parents, adults kept their free will, so the petition disclosed no cause of action. It added that the videos reflected 'poor parenting' and that whether to prohibit such conduct, or make it a ground to set aside an election, was for Parliament.
Why the EC's advisory did not help. The Election Commission's 2024 advisory on children asks parties not to use children in campaigns, but the court held that even if the circular had the force of law, the ground in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) on violation of rules would not apply. The EC has told the Bombay High Court that recognised parties breaching it could face action under paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
The two sides of the debate. One view, drawing on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, holds that children have a right to political views and that a ban would be overbroad. The other holds that using a child's attachment to a celebrity leader to pressure parents carries consumer 'pester power' marketing into politics and bypasses reasoned persuasion. Many argue for a precisely drawn law rather than a vague ban.
Options. Parliament could amend the Act to make the use of children a corrupt practice or an electoral offence. The EC could tie its advisory to the Model Code of Conduct and the Symbols Order. Any rule must separate genuine participation, like a child attending a rally with a parent, from use as a campaign tool. Disputes would still go through Election petitions under the RP Act.
Election petitions under the RP Act
The only route to challenge an election result, and its narrow grounds.
In one line: An election to Parliament or a State legislature can be challenged only by an election petition in the High Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The grounds
Section 100 lists the grounds on which an election can be declared void, including corrupt practices by the candidate or agent and non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act or rules that materially affected the result. Courts treat this as a complete code: an election cannot be set aside on any ground outside it. An appeal from the High Court lies to the Supreme Court under Section 116A.
In the news
The Madras High Court rejected a petition against a TVK MLA from Salem North because the allegations, even if true, did not fit any ground in Section 100.
Where to go next
- Undue influence under Section 123(2)
- Election Commission's 2024 advisory on children
Undue influence under Section 123(2)
The corrupt practice the petitioner alleged.
In one line: Section 123(2) of the RP Act makes undue influence, meaning direct or indirect interference with the free exercise of any electoral right, a corrupt practice.
Who must commit it
To void an election, the interference must be by the candidate, the candidate's agent, or another person acting with the consent of the candidate or election agent. Courts also require full particulars of the allegation in the petition.
The October 2026 ruling
The petitioner argued that appealing to children to pressure their parents exploited family emotion. The court accepted that 'the familial bond and emotion are exploited to sway the choice', but held that adults' free will was not overpowered and the appeal was not shown to have the candidate's consent.
Where to go next
Election Commission's 2024 advisory on children
What the EC asked parties to stop, and why it lacks teeth.
In one line: On 5 February 2024 the Election Commission directed parties and candidates not to use children in any form of election campaigning.
What it covers
The advisory bars holding a child in arms, carrying a child in a vehicle or at a rally, and using children to create the look of a campaign through poems, songs, spoken words or party symbols. A child who is simply with a parent or guardian near a leader, and not part of campaigning, is not a violation.
Its limits
It is an advisory, not a statute. The EC has said that recognised parties breaching it could face action under paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The Madras High Court held that it could not be used to void an election.
Where to go next
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
The treaty cited on both sides of the debate.
In one line: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), adopted on 20 November 1989, sets out civil, political, economic and social rights of every person below 18.
India and the UNCRC
India ratified it on 11 December 1992. Article 12 gives every child the right to express views on matters affecting them and to have those views given weight according to age and maturity.
Why it is in this debate
Supporters of child participation in politics cite Article 12. Critics answer that the right to be heard is different from being used as a tool to influence adult voters, and that the Convention also requires protecting children from exploitation. The line between genuine participation and manipulation is what any new law would have to draw.
Where to go next
- Election Commission's 2024 advisory on children
- Undue influence under Section 123(2)
Take the 23 October 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers