It is worth exploring Vijay’s appeal to children to convince adults to vote for him, says judge citing personal anecdote

TN Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. File | Photo credit: PTI

Narrating a personal incident, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madras High Court on Friday (May 29, 2026) said it was worth taking up the issue of Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay appealing to children to ensure that adults in their families vote for the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party during the 2026 Tamilaga Legislative Assembly.

Presiding over the summer vacation bench along with Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, the Chief Justice told senior counsel S. Muralidhar (retired chairman) representing TVK that he had been unwell about three weeks ago and had visited his family doctor in Madurai. “He (the doctor) said that when he was about to go to the polls, his grandson said that you only have to vote for . . .”

Mr. Muralidhar responded by saying, “In our tradition, children advise fathers. Your Lordship’s name also symbolizes that.” The High Council had in mind the meaning of the name Swaminathan (“Teacher of the Lord”), the second name of Lord Murugan, who, according to legend, transformed into the guru of his father Lord Shiva.

When the judges said they would accept the case filed by Cuddalore-based advocate L Vasuki and give time to TVK to file a counter-affidavit, the senior counsel replied that there was a problem in declaring the case as a public interest litigation. He urged the court to simply adjourn the matter so that he could study the matter in detail before filing a counter-affidavit.

“The petition is entirely based on news reports. Your Lordship may allow the filing of a proper reply or reply as it involves very interesting legal questions relating to the powers of the Election Commission of India (EC),” he said, stressing that even violations of the model code of conduct can be addressed by the Commission only during the elections and not after the declaration of results.

“Once the elections are over, the EC will disappear from the picture. Any allegation of electoral malpractice raised thereafter could only be dealt with in individual election petitions. So the real question here is what are the powers of the ECI after the elections to conduct the inquiry sought by the present petitioner,” Mr. Muralidhar told the Division Bench.

He further stated that Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 refers to “improper influence” as corrupt practices, he said: “The adjective used in the Act is ‘undue.’ What may constitute undue influence would now have to be tested in terms of the election of individual candidates, as there is no concept of party disqualification. There is only the consequence of derecognition of the party.”

He urged the court to give him some time to study the issue thoroughly and then assist the court. On his part, senior counsel NR Elango and SR Rajagopal representing Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) told the court that the allegations leveled by the PIL petitioner against their clients were different from those leveled against TVK.

Since DMK and AIADMK have been accused of bribing voters in Alangulam, Mylapore and Thirumangalam constituencies, the only remedy is to file election petitions and not PILs, the counsel said. Justice Swaminathan looked them over and said, “Mr. Rajagopal, I think you must sail with him (Mr. Elang).” Later, the Division Bench adjourned the hearing to July 1, 2026 for filing counter affidavits by all the respondents.

Published – 30 May 2026 05:30 IST