Should children be involved in political campaigning?

Why in the News

Under current election law, urging children to “pester” their parents for votes is in bad taste but not a ground to set aside an election. The Madras High Court has dismissed a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate’s election petition against Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) founder and now Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, and left it to Parliament to decide whether such campaigning should become one.

What did the petition argue, and why did it fail?

1. Undue influence: Undue influence is a corrupt practice, an act that can void an election, under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). It means pressure amounting to “tyranny over the mind”, which overpowers the voter’s will.
2. The appeal and the petition: Mr. Vijay asked young people to “pester your parents and elders to vote for the whistle”, his party’s symbol. The DMK candidate argued that this was undue influence.
3. Court’s finding: The court found no evidence that the election was manipulated, because adult voters still had a choice.
4. Court’s remarks: It called involving “tender children” in elections “in bad taste”, a sign of poor parenting and a “cheap and politically motivated act”.
5. The takeaway: The law asks whether a vote was coerced, not whether a child was used to win it, so this kind of campaigning falls outside it.

How does “pester power” turn children into campaigners?

1. Youth appeal: The TVK won the State election in May largely on its appeal among young people.
2. Pester power: In consumer marketing, firms aim campaigns at children so that they press parents into household purchases. The same method has now crossed into electoral marketing.
3. Influence pathway: A child’s attachment to a celebrity produces enthusiasm, which becomes repeated requests to parents, which in turn presses on their vote.
4. Indirect message: A candidate normally gives voters reasons to back him. This route says only “someone you love wants you to support me”.
5. Signs of impact: Voters said they chose the whistle because “my son asked me”, and children refused to eat until “mama” (uncle) became Chief Minister.

Is it participation or manipulation?

1. Right to participate: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the treaty on children’s rights, recognises their right to take part in politics. But they should speak in their own voice, not a tutored one.
2. UNICEF framework: The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) separates genuine participation from manipulation and tokenism. Helping children develop a voice is participation, but scripting them to deliver an adult’s message is not.
3. Agency gap: Adults in one household often vote differently because each has agency, the capacity to decide for oneself. A grandchild lacks that agency, so a child’s appeal to a grandparent works on emotion alone.
4. Persuasion itself: Children already know Mr. Vijay as an actor through his films and songs, so the appeal put undue pressure on them even if it changed no vote.

Challenges

1. High legal threshold: The “tyranny over the mind” test protects adult voters, so it cannot reach an appeal routed through their children.
2. Proving effect: Courts cannot prove that people voted as they did because of the appeal, as the judgment itself noted.
3. Permanent footprint: A video of a child campaigner stays online forever, though the child may regret it as an adult.

Way Forward

1. Precisely drawn law: Parliament should bar scripting children as campaign messengers, without barring their participation or voice.
2. Ground for voiding: Parliament should decide, as the court suggested, whether such campaigning becomes a ground to set aside an election.
3. Child labour parallel: Just as child labour laws limit children’s work, Parliament should enact a child campaigning law.

Conclusion

Election law protects the voter’s free will, but not the child used to reach that voter. What to watch is whether Parliament draws a narrow line between a child’s political voice and a child scripted as a campaign messenger.

Corrupt Practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

1. Section 123 list: The corrupt practices that can invalidate an election include bribery, undue influence, appeals on grounds of religion or caste and booth capturing.
2. Election petition route: An election can be questioned only through an election petition in the High Court within 45 days. Under Section 100 the Court declares it void where a corrupt practice is proved.
3. Disqualification: Section 8A disqualifies a person found guilty of a corrupt practice. Eg. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) held that seeking votes on religion or caste is one.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2025, GS2, 10 marks] Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute ‘undue influence’ and consequently a corrupt practice.”