Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay had “blackmailed” children by making an appeal to them to prevail upon the adults in their familiies to vote for his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, election petitioners R.D. Shekar and S. Inigo Irudayaraj, of DMK, who lost to him in Perambur and Tiruchi East Assembly constituencies respectively, have contended before the Madras High Court.
Listing out identical grounds on which they had filed individual election petitions challenging the Chief Minister’s victory from both the constituencies this year, the petitioners said: “The first respondent (Mr. Vijay) has, through his speeches, emotionally targeted and, to a degree, even blackmailed vulnerable children and impressionable minds to garner votes of their family members.”
They submitted in the court a DVD containing a video clip of the appeal made by the Chief Minister during his last election campaign speech at YMCA grounds in Chennai on April 21, 2026 and said: “This kind of an emotional appeal to children and involving them in electoral activity is not only immoral but against the spirit of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Constitution.”
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan on Tuesday (July 7, 2026) ordered notices to the Chief Minister on both the election petitions after hearing preliminary submissions made by senior counsel P. Wilson for the two petitioners who alleged that children were involved in election campaign related activities too by making them sport TVK mufflers around their necks besides holding pamphlets, posters and handbills.
Citing Election Commission of India’s (ECI) February 5, 2024 directive against the use of children in election campaigns/rallies, the petitioners said, “the systemic involvement of children in his election campaign activities by the first respondent” was against such directive and hence the court must declare his victory to be null and void for having reportedly violated the commission’s instructions.
The other grounds raised in the two election petitions were alleged failure on the part of the Chief Minister to disclose his election expenses in full after the conduct of the polls, reported discrepancies in the information provided in the election affidavits regarding his assets and liabilities, campaigning in religious places in violation of the model code of conduct and so on.
The petitioners said, music composer S. Thaman had composed TVK flag anthem, campaign anthem and whistle anthem which were used extensively for the campaigning but the expenses incurrred for them had not been disclosed at all. They said, the composer would not have charged anything less than ₹10 lakh for his services and claimed that there was suppression of this election expenditure.
“Incurring of expenditure in excess of the cap of ₹40 lakh fixed by the Election Commission of India is violative 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 excess expenditure had hampered their prospects of winning the elections in the two constituencies.
The court was also told that the Chief Minister in Part A of his election affidavit had disclosed income tax dues to the tune of ₹3.44 crore for different 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 exhibited by the Returning Officer to the voters through his office, as well as on the website, and a voter who reads 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 had “organised a campaign inside St. Antony’s Church on April 19, 2026” and added that “the conduct of the first respondent cannot be said to be an act of private prayer because the first respondent had worn a muffler in the party colours of the TVK and had also assembled media and his supporters outside the church.”
Therefore, the petitioners urged the court to nullify the election of Mr. Vijay from both the constituencies and instead declare them as having been elected from those constituencies. Since the Chief Minister had resigned from Tiruchi East constituency, Mr. Irudayaraj also sought an interim injunction restraining the ECI from holding byelection to the constituency until the disposal of his election petition.
Apart from the contestants, two voters S. Dinesh and T.N. Lakshmi Narasimhan from Perambur constituency too had filed individual election petitions challenging the Chief Minister’s victory from that constituency and the judge ordered notices to him in those petitions too. Mr. Vijay had secured 1,20,365 votes as against 53,715 votes secured by Mr. Shekar and won Perambur by a margin of 53,715 votes.
Similarly, he had secured 91,381 votes as 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 – July 08, 2026 01:26 am IST
