Nation, Parliament must debate political appeals to children during elections: Madras High Court

It is for the nation and Parliament to debate whether politicians should be allowed to make an appeal to children to influence their family members to vote for a party and whether it is right on the part of the parents to make YouTube reels out of such pestering that happens at home and post them on social media for “cheap” publicity, the Madras High Court has said.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy said that the entire act of involving tender children in elections “is in bad taste, and the tasks they are made to perform at home for making YouTube reels reflect poor parenting besides being a cheap and politically motivated act.” He said that it was for Parliament to consider whether such acts should be made a ground for setting aside the election of candidates.

Rejection of election petition

The observations were made while rejecting an election petition filed by DMK candidate R. Rajendran challenging the election of TVK MLA K. Sivakumar from the Salem North constituency. The judge held that the law as it stands today does not bring such acts involving children under the definition of ‘undue influence’ of voters, thereby preventing courts from setting aside the election of returned candidates.

The election petitioner had contended that the TVK president and incumbent Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay had made an appeal to children during the course of campaigning for the 2026 Assembly elections to pester the adults in their families and make sure that they vote for his party’s candidates. The petitioner said that such an appeal was intended to exploit familial relationships and exert emotional influence.

He also placed before the court a number of YouTube reels that were subsequently shot by the parents and posted on social media, depicting many children pestering, threatening, pleading with and pressuring their family members to vote for TVK candidates. In some of the videos, the children were even seen physically hitting and slapping their adult family members when they refused to vote for the TVK.

‘Adults have free will’

After watching them, the judge wrote that it was the adults who had shown the children the video of the TVK president’s appeal and then made the kids perform all kinds of acts for the purpose of shooting the YouTube reels. “Even if the materials presented are true and correct, exploitation of the familial bond and emotions to sway the choice cannot be elevated to a status where the free will of adults is overpowered,” he said.

Observing that the influence of children on the family, with reference to both purchasing power and political choice, was a matter of great debate all over the world, the judge said, “Just as parents influence children, children also influence parents and elders at home.” He said that this was more so in the case of India, where people see children as incarnations of God and regard them as their reborn ancestors/forefathers.

The children’s words do carry a great amount of weight in familial decision-making, especially in modern times. But “if the adults in the given situation (of choosing a candidate to represent them in the Legislative Assembly) 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,” Justice Chakravarthy concluded.

He said that the term ‘undue influence’ under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, would have to be construed strictly. While persuasion or canvassing per se would not amount to interference, it would certainly fall under the definition of ‘undue influence’ if it reached “the point of tyranny over the mind, overpowering the volition without convincing the judgment.”

The YouTube reels made by the parents “cannot be seen as the tender children’s sole act of committing tyranny over the mind, overpowering volition. At best, they can be seen as convincing adults to vote for the party and the candidate. It is not based on informed consideration of the candidates or the way adults are supposed to make choices in a democracy,” the judge concluded.