Chennai: The Madras High Court has said 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.” However, the court said, it was for the country and Parliament to debate if politicians must be allowed to appeal to children to influence family members to vote for a party. Likewise, it needs to be reflected upon if it is right on the part of the parents to make social media reels out of such acts of pestering by children for “cheap” publicity.
Court examines children's role in campaigning
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made these remarks while hearing a petition that referred to the use of children in the recent Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, with the TVK leader C Joseph Vijay himself appealing to kids to pester their parents and acquaintances to vote for him just as they would do when they wanted a chocolate.
Rejecting the election petition filed by DMK Salem North candidate Rajendran, challenging the election of TVK contestant Sivakumar, the judge said it was for Parliament to consider whether such acts should be made a ground for setting aside elections. Presently, the law does not describe acts involving children under the definition of “undue influence” of voters, and consequently, courts cannot set aside an election on these grounds, the judge noted.
Judge raises concerns over social media reels
Justice Chakravarthy watched the social media reels presented by the petitioner, including some where children were seen hitting and slapping their elderly family members when they said they would not vote for the TVK. Lamenting over this, the judge said the adults had encouraged the children by showing them Vijay’s appeal. “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,” the judge said.
Also Watch:
Legal limits of undue influence
Consequently, he held 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.”
