Chief Minister Vijay ‘blackmailed’ children by appealing to them, claim two election petitioners in Madras High Court

Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay “blackmailed” children by urging them to sway the adults in their families to vote for his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, election petitioners RD Shekar and DMK’s S. Inigo Irudayaraj, who lost to him in the Perambur and Tiruchi East Assembly constituencies before the High Court in Madrada constituencies.

Listing the same grounds on which they had filed individual election petitions challenging the Prime Minister’s victory in both the constituencies this year, the petitioners said, “The first respondent (Mr. Vijay) through his speeches has emotionally targeted and to some extent even blackmailed vulnerable children and impressionable minds to get the votes of their family members.

They presented the court with a DVD containing a video clip of the appeal made by the Chief Minister during his last election campaign speech at the YMCA grounds in Chennai on 21 April 2026, saying, “This kind of 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) ordered the Chief Minister to take notice of both the election petitions after hearing preliminary submissions by senior counsel P. Wilson for the two petitioners, who alleged that the children were involved in election campaign activities by forcing TVK sports mufflers on their necks in addition to leaflets, posters and handbills.

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 that the “systematic involvement of children in his election campaign activities by the first respondent” was against such directive and therefore the court must declare his victory void for alleged violation of the commission’s guidelines.

Other grounds raised in the two election petitions were alleged non-disclosure of full election expenses by the chief minister after the elections were conducted, reported discrepancies in the information given in election affidavits about his assets and liabilities, campaigning at religious places in violation of the model code of conduct and so on.

The petitioners said music composer S. Thaman had composed TVK’s flag anthem, campaign anthem and whistle anthem, which were widely used for the campaign but the cost of which was not disclosed at all. They said the composer would not charge anything less than ₹10 lakh for his services and alleged suppression of these election expenses.

“Incurring expenditure in excess of the ceiling of ₹ 40 lakh set by the Election Commission of India is a violation of Section 77(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and is also a corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” the petitioners said. They claimed that such excessive spending had limited their prospects of winning the elections in the two constituencies.

The court was also told that in Part A of his election affidavit, the Chief Minister had disclosed income tax dues of ₹3.44 crore for various financial years, but in Part B of the same affidavit, he had claimed that he had no dues to the government.

“This is an important material concealment because Part B of the Form 26 affidavit is a summary issued by the Returning Officer to the electors through his office and also on the website, and a voter reading this abstract might think that the first respondent has no dues to the government,” the petitioners said.

They also told the court that the chief minister “held a campaign at St. Anthony’s Church on April 19, 2026” and added that “the first respondent’s conduct cannot be considered an act of private prayer as the first respondent was wearing a muffler in TVK party colors and also gathered the media and his supporters outside the church.”

The petitioners, therefore, urged the court to annul Mr. Vijay’s election from both the constituencies and instead declare them elected from those constituencies. Since the Chief Minister has resigned from the Tiruchi East constituency, Mr. Irudayaraj has also sought an interim injunction to prevent the ECI from holding by-elections in the constituency until his election petition is disposed of.

Apart from the contestants, two voters S. Dinesh and TN Lakshmi Narasimhan from Perambur constituency also filed individual election petitions challenging the Chief Minister’s victory in that constituency and the judge ordered that notices be sent to him in these petitions as well. Mr. Vijay got 1,20,365 votes against 53,715 votes secured by Mr. Shekar and won Perambur by a margin of 53,715 votes.

Similarly, he polled 91,381 votes against 63,965 votes secured by Mr. Irudayaraj and won Tiruchi East by a margin of 27,416 votes. He subsequently resigned from the Tiruchi East Assembly seat and retained Perambur.

Published – 8 Jul 2026 01:26 IST