Court Holds Violation of Election Commission Circular Alone Not Ground to Set Aside Election; Appeals to Children to Influence Parents Do Not Constitute Corrupt Practice
In a significant judgment dated October 15, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Mr. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Rajendran R. as the Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from Salem North constituency in the 2026 Assembly elections. The petition filed by K. Sivakumar, the runner-up candidate, sought to declare the election of Rajendran void on grounds of alleged use of children in election campaigning and undue influence.
The petitioner's primary contentions were twofold: first, that the returned candidate's political party violated the Election Commission of India's circular dated February 5, 2024, which prohibits the use of children in election campaigns; second, that the party president, Mr. Joseph Vijay, made a public appeal to children to persuade their parents and elders to vote for their candidate, amounting to corrupt practice and undue influence under Sections 123(2) and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petitioner produced video evidence and complaints lodged with the Returning Officer and the police, alleging that children were used in rallies and social media campaigns to exert emotional pressure on adult voters. Examples included children threatening family members to vote for the returned candidate and videos of elders admitting to voting under such pressure.
The returned candidate's counsel argued that the Election Commission's circular is a guideline or part of the Model Code of Conduct without statutory force under the Act and thus its violation alone does not constitute a ground to nullify election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). Further, the appeal made by Mr. Joseph Vijay to children was not by the candidate or his agent nor done with their consent, and mere persuasion by children does not amount to undue influence or corrupt practice as defined under the Act.
The Court examined the legal provisions carefully. It held that the Election Commission's circular, although having statutory character under Article 324 of the Constitution, is not an order under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, breach of the circular does not per se constitute a ground for declaring election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). The Court also emphasized that election petitions must disclose a complete cause of action and material facts, and the mere filing of a written statement does not bar consideration of a rejection petition if the petition lacks merit.
Regarding the appeal to children, the Court noted that undue influence, as per Section 123(2), requires interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights by the candidate or his agent or with their consent. The speech by the party president, who is not the candidate or agent, cannot be imputed as corrupt practice of the candidate. Moreover, the influence exerted through children to persuade parents was held to be canvassing or persuasion, which does not amount to undue influence unless it overpowers the free will of electors. The Court found no evidence that adult voters' free will was overborne by the children's actions, which were in any case in "bad taste" but did not satisfy the threshold for undue influence.
Consequently, the Court allowed the rejection petition filed by the returned candidate, dismissed the election petition, and ordered refund of the security deposit paid by the petitioner. The Court underlined the importance of expeditiously disposing of election petitions unlikely to produce relief to allow the elected representative to discharge public duties.
This judgment clarifies the limited scope of grounds for setting aside elections under the Representation of the People Act and underscores that violations of Election Commission guidelines or appeals to children do not automatically amount to corrupt practices or undue influence warranting invalidation of election results.
Bottom Line:
Election law - Election petition can be rejected at threshold even after filing of written statement - Violation of Election Commission circular prohibiting use of children in election campaign is not by itself a ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Appeal by political party leader to children to persuade parents to vote does not amount to corrupt practice or disclose triable issue of undue influence.
Statutory provision(s):
Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sections 83, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii), 100(1)(d)(iv), 123(2); Article 324 of the Constitution of India; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 63(4)(c)
K.Sivakumar v. Rajendran.R, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2998856
