Political campaigns on social media increasingly draw children in as content creators. Examine the ethical issues involved.

When children film party reels at home, they become proxy persuaders of voters they are not old enough to join. After the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections, the Madras High Court called this "in bad taste" and "a cheap and politically motivated act", but left any remedy to Parliament [1]. The ethical question is where civic participation ends and exploitation begins.

Ethical issues involved

• Instrumentalisation: Children are used as a means to an electoral end. Their influence over parents and grandparents becomes a campaign asset [1].
• Consent and autonomy: Minors cannot judge partisan claims critically. When they are given "home tasks" to make YouTube reels [1], adult messages are passed off in a child's voice without informed consent.
• Integrity of voter choice: Emotional pressure from children weakens the adult voter's free and reasoned choice, which is the moral basis of adult franchise under Art. 326.
• Parental duty: The court said such tasks reflect "poor parenting" [1]. Partisan loyalty is put ahead of the child's best interests.
• Exploitation: Making content is unpaid work for a party. The ECI's 2024 directive bans using children "in any form", including songs, poems or party symbols, and requires compliance with the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 [2].
• Accountability gap: Reels made at home escape oversight that is built around rallies. The court found no ground to void the election [1], so responsibility gets spread thin across party, parent and platform.

Counter-view: the participation dimension

• UNCRC Arts. 12 and 15 give children the right to express their views and to freedom of association and peaceful assembly [3].
• The CRC Committee reads Art. 12 as including the right to be heard collectively [4]. Early civic socialisation can strengthen democracy.
• So the real line is between voluntary expression and orchestrated partisan use. The ECI itself does not treat a child who is simply with a parent near a leader as a violation [2].

Way forward

• Parliament could consider making the instrumental use of minors a ground for setting aside an election under the RP Act, 1951 [1].
• The ECI directive could explicitly cover social-media content and add platform takedown duties.

The ethical core is telling a child's own voice apart from a party's use of that voice. A rule that bans scripted content while protecting genuine expression would respect both child protection and UNCRC participation rights. That keeps childhood free and the vote truly free, in line with SDG 16.2 on ending the exploitation of children.