How can the child's right to participation under the UNCRC be balanced against the need to protect children from political exploitation? Suggest a regulatory framework.

The UNCRC treats children as rights-holders who may express their views (Art. 12) and associate peacefully (Art. 15) [1]. Tamil Nadu's 2026 elections, where children were used in campaign reels [4], show how easily participation slides into exploitation. The answer is to regulate how children take part, not to ban them outright.

Participation: why exclusion is not the answer

• Art. 12 is one of the CRC's four general principles. The CRC Committee treats it as the basis of child "participation" [2].
• Art. 15 protects association and assembly, such as youth clubs, school parliaments and issue-based advocacy [1].
• Early civic socialisation builds informed future voters.

Exploitation: why protection is needed

• Proxy persuasion: using non-voting children to pressure parents distorts the voter's free choice [4].
• Ethical harm: the Madras High Court called such use "in bad taste" and a sign of "poor parenting" [4].
• Labour and safety: rallies, slogan-shouting and poster work breach child-labour law [3].
• Digital blind spot: reels made at home escape rules written for rallies.

Balancing principle

Child-initiated, voluntary, non-partisan  → PERMIT  (Arts. 12, 15)
Party-directed, partisan, instrumental    → PROHIBIT
Test: Whose agenda? Who benefits? Best interests (Art. 3)?

Fig.: Participation–exploitation test [1]

Suggested regulatory framework

1. Statutory backing: write the ECI's 2024 "zero tolerance" advisory into the RP Act, 1951. The advisory bars children from rallies, songs and party insignia but exempts mere presence with parents [3]. The court has left it to Parliament to decide whether such use should be a ground for setting aside an election [4].
2. Graded penalties: a warning, then a ban on campaigning, then treatment of deliberate, repeated use as a corrupt practice.
3. Digital rules: extend the ECI's social-media advisories [5] to cover party-commissioned content made by children, with platforms taking such content down during the Model Code period.
4. Accountability: keep DEOs and ROs personally responsible [3]. Make NCPCR and the SCPCRs the complaint-redress bodies.
5. Safe channels: offer mock parliaments and child consultations as non-partisan outlets for participation.

A child's voice should be heard, not borrowed. A framework that allows voluntary civic expression and penalises party-driven use would respect both Art. 12 and the best-interests principle of Art. 3 [1]. If Parliament acts on the court's suggestion, it can protect both childhood and free elections, in line with SDG 16.2's goal of ending the exploitation of children.