Election Commission’s Ban on Using Children in Campaigns Has Statutory Force, Rules Madras High Court

Case: Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v. Vijayakumar @ Navalpattu S. Viji
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2026
Court: High Court of Madras
Coram: Justice K. Kumaresh Babu
Proceedings: Application to reject the Election Petition challenging the Thiruverumbur Assembly Constituency result

Court Observation

“It is to be noted that instructions given to a candidate in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are binding on the candidate, as it has a statutory force.”

Summary

The Madras High Court has held that the Election Commission of India’s instructions barring candidates from engaging children in election campaigns have statutory force and are binding on candidates. The Court refused to reject an election petition filed by DMK leader Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi challenging the victory of TVK MLA Vijayakumar, also known as Navalpattu S. Viji, from the Thiruverumbur Assembly constituency in the 2026 Assembly election.

Viji, who won the seat by 8,705 votes, had sought rejection of the election petition, arguing that a violation of the Commission’s instructions could at most be an election offence and could not be a ground to set aside the election, and that the petition did not show how the result had been materially affected. The Court held that the instructions were issued in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that whether the alleged violation materially affected the election could be decided only after trial. The application was dismissed and Viji was directed to file his reply to the election petition within four weeks.

Key Holdings

• Instructions issued by the Election Commission of India to a candidate in exercise of statutory powers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, have statutory force and are binding on the candidate.
• The Commission’s instruction not to engage children in election campaigns is therefore not a mere administrative direction; its violation is capable of having a material effect on the election.
• Whether an alleged violation of the Commission’s instructions materially affected the result of an election can be decided only after trial, on the evidence, and not at the stage of an application to reject the election petition.
• An election petition cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because the petitioner has not shown, at that stage, how the result was materially affected.

Background

Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, a former Minister of the DMK, filed an election petition challenging the victory of Vijayakumar of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from the Thiruverumbur (General) Assembly constituency, alleging among other things that children were engaged in the election campaign in violation of the Election Commission’s instructions. Vijayakumar, who secured 89,837 votes, applied for rejection of the election petition. The Court dismissed the application and directed him to file his reply within four weeks.

Related Articles

• Voters Can File Private Complaints Over False Election Affidavits, Rules Supreme Court
• Electoral Bonds Judgment: Transparency vs Anonymity in Political Funding

Judgment Link: Read the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.