Chief Minister Vijay “blackmailed” children by appealing to them, two election petitioners allege before Madras High Court
Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay had “blackmailed” the children by appealing to the adults in their families to persuade them to vote for his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party; RD Shekar and S. Inigo Irudayaraj had argued before the Madras High Court election petitions from DMK, which lost to him in Perambur and Tiruchi East Assembly constituencies respectively.
Enumerating the same grounds they had given in individual election petitions challenging the Chief Minister’s victory from both the constituencies this year, the petitioners said: “The first respondent (Mr. Vijay) emotionally targeted through his speeches and even blackmailed vulnerable children and impressionable minds to some extent to garner votes of his family members.”
They submitted a DVD to the court containing a video clip of the Prime Minister’s appeal during his last election campaign speech at the YMCA ground in Chennai on April 21, 2026, and said: “Such emotional appeal to children and involving them in election activities is not only immoral but also against the spirit of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Constitution.”
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, on Tuesday, July 7, 2026, after hearing preliminary submissions made by senior advocate P. Wilson for the two petitioners who alleged that the children were also involved in election campaign-related activities, ordered notice to be served to the Prime Minister by making them wear TVK silencers around their necks, along with pamphlets, posters and flyers.
Referring to the Election Commission of India (ECI) directive dated February 5, 2024 against the use of children in election campaigns/rallies, the petitioners said the “systematic involvement of children by the primary participant in election campaign activities” was against such directive and therefore the court should declare his victory null and void as it was reportedly in violation of the commission’s directions.
Other justifications put forward in the two election petitions include the Prime Minister’s failure to fully disclose his election expenses after the polls were held, reporting inconsistencies in the information provided in the election declarations regarding his assets and liabilities, campaigning in violation of the code of conduct in religious places, etc. It was claimed.
The petitioners said that music composer S. Thaman composed the TVK flag anthem, campaign anthem and whistle anthem which were used extensively within the scope of the campaign, but the expenses incurred for these were not disclosed in any way. They said the composer would not charge less than ₹ 10 lakh for his services and alleged that these election expenses were suppressed.
“Incurring expenditure in excess of the upper limit of ₹ 40 lakh fixed by the Election Commission of India is in violation of Section 77(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and is also a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(6) of the Representation of People Act, 1951,” the petitioners said. They claimed that such excessive spending was hindering their hopes of winning elections in the two constituencies.
The court was also told that the Prime Minister had declared income tax dues of ₹3.44 crore for different financial years in Part A of his election affidavit, but in Part B of the same return he claimed that he did not have any dues to the government.
“This is a significant material concealment because Part B of the Form 26 affidavit is a summary submitted by the Returning Officer to voters through his office and website and a voter reading this summary may think that the first respondent does not have any dues to the government,” the petitioners said.
They also told the court that the Prime Minister “held a campaign in St. Antony’s Church on 19 April 2026” and added: “The first defendant’s conduct cannot be said to be a private act of prayer because the first defendant wore a scarf in TVK’s party colors and also gathered the media and his supporters outside the church.”
Therefore, the petitioners requested the court to cancel Mr. Vijay’s election from both the constituencies and instead declare them elected from these constituencies. Since the Chief Minister has resigned from Tiruchi East constituency, Mr. Irudayaraj also sought an interim injunction restraining the ECI from holding by-elections in the constituency until the election petition is disposed of.
Apart from the contestants, two voters from Perambur constituency, S. Dinesh and TN Lakshmi Narasimhan, had also filed individual election petitions challenging the Chief Minister’s victory in this constituency, and the judge ordered notice of these petitions to him as well. Mr. Vijay secured 1,20,365 votes against Mr. Shekar’s 53,715 votes and won Perambur by a margin of 53,715 votes.
Similarly, he polled 91,381 votes against 63,965 votes polled by Mr. Irudayaraj and won Tiruchi East by a margin of 27,416 votes. He later resigned from the Tiruchi East Assembly seat and retained Perambur.
It was published – 08 July 2026 01:26 IST
