The High Court of Judicature at Madras has dismissed an election petition filed against the victory of Rajendran R., the candidate for the Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) who won the Salem North Assembly Constituency during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections. In an order delivered by Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, the Court allowed the rejection petition filed by the returned candidate, finding that the allegations of "undue influence" and violations of Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines did not meet the legal threshold to set aside an election result.

The challenge was initiated by K. Sivakumar, a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate, who secured the second position with 71,676 votes against the winner’s 85,710 votes. The election petitioner had sought to declare the election of the first respondent, Rajendran R., null and void, primarily citing two grounds: the alleged use of children in election campaigning in violation of ECI circulars, and the exertive pressure caused by the President of the TVK party, the film actor Joseph Vijay, who had publicly urged children to pressure their parents into voting for the party.

The Election Petition alleged that the involvement of children in campaign rallies and the creation of digital content on platforms like Instagram—where children were filmed pressuring or threatening family members to vote for the Whistle symbol—constituted a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner contended that this represented an improper interference with the free exercise of electoral rights by exploiting natural familial bonds.

However, the Court meticulously examined the legal framework surrounding election challenges. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that while the ECI’s February 5, 2024, circular prohibits the use of children in election campaigns, the circular itself does not constitute a statutory "order" for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act. The Court emphasized that for an election to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), there must be a non-compliance with the Constitution, the Act itself, or rules and orders formally made under the Act.

"Thus, as far as the appeal made by Mr. Joseph Vijay, as the leader of the political party, is concerned, it cannot be said that it was committed by the candidate or his agent, or with the consent of the candidate or his election agent," the Court observed in its judgment. The Court further clarified that even if the circular carried statutory force, it does not serve as a ground for voiding an election under the specific statutory provisions cited by the petitioner.

Addressing the substantive argument of undue influence , the Court held that the campaigning methods described, while potentially controversial, did not amount to the level of compulsion required to establish " undue influence " under Section 123(2). The Court explained that legal " undue influence " necessitates a level of pressure that acts as "tyranny over the mind overpowering the volition without convincing the judgment." In the eyes of the Court, the persuasion exerted by children did not strip adult voters of their free will.

The Court expressed strong disapproval of the campaign tactics utilized, noting that involving children in this manner was "in bad taste" and reflected "poor parenting." However, it maintained that moral disapproval is not synonymous with a legal basis for voiding an election result. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted: "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."

The judgment stressed that the issue of using minors in political advocacy is a broader societal debate that remains the prerogative of the national legislature rather than a matter for judicial intervention under the current electoral law. The Court concluded that the pleadings in the election petition, even if assumed to be entirely true, did not disclose a sufficient cause of action to warrant a full trial.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the rejection petition, effectively aborting the election challenge at the threshold. This decision underscores the strictly defined parameters within which election results can be contested in India, emphasizing that an election petition must demonstrate clear, specific evidence of corrupt practice or statutory violation that directly impacts the free will of the electorate, rather than relying on generalized claims of unethical conduct or moral impropriety. The ruling confirms the victory of the returned candidate, as the Court ordered the rejection of the Election Petition in E.L.P. No. 46 of 2026, and directed that the security deposit paid by the election petitioner be refunded.