Should children be involved in political campaigning?

1. At a Glance

• Core issue: whether political parties or candidates may use children (non-voters) as campaign tools. This covers appearing at rallies, making social-media reels, and persuading parents to vote a certain way [1].
• Trigger: the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election. A High Court called the involvement of children "in bad taste" and said it was for Parliament to decide whether it should be a ground for setting aside an election [1].
• Two sides of the tension: the child's right to be heard and to associate (UNCRC Arts. 12 and 15) [2] versus protecting children from manipulation and exploitation. This is a classic GS-II and GS-IV debate.
• Why it matters for UPSC: it touches electoral ethics, child rights, the regulation of social-media campaigning and how far courts should go in electoral matters.

2. Why in the News

• In the May 2026 Tamil Nadu State elections, the new Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) won, largely on its appeal among young people. Founder C. Joseph Vijay is now Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu [1].
• In April 2026, school children were photographed at Vijay's campaign at T. Nagar, Chennai [1].
• A DMK candidate petitioned the court, arguing that Vijay had appealed to children to persuade their parents to vote for TVK [1].
• The High Court dismissed the petition but made strongly critical remarks. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy said the practice "is in bad taste" and that the home tasks children are given for YouTube reels "reflect poor parenting, besides being a cheap and politically motivated act" [1].
• On 23 October 2026, The Hindu (Chennai edition, p. 15) ran a debate on the question between Andrew Sesuraj (Founder-Convenor, Tamil Nadu Child Rights Watch) and Anil Pillai (behavioural strategist and Director, Terragni Consulting) [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1989: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted. It has 54 articles, including participation rights (Art. 12) and association/assembly rights (Art. 15) [2].
• The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child read Art. 12 as covering the right to be heard collectively as well as individually. It also linked education to children's ability to influence political policy processes for better protection of human rights (General Comment No. 11) [3].
• 2026 (TN): a youth-driven campaign that reached voters through their children. Older voters told journalists that their children and grandchildren were urging them to vote for Vijay [1].
• 2026: a judicial observation on record that legislative action is a matter for Parliament, not the courts [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Party at the centre of the issue	Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), founded by C. Joseph Vijay [1]
Election	Tamil Nadu State elections, May 2026 [1]
Petitioner	DMK candidate [1]
Judge	Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy [1]
Outcome	Petition dismissed, with critical remarks [1]
Court's position on remedy	Parliament to consider whether such acts should be a ground for setting aside an election [1]
CRC Art. 12	A child capable of forming views may express them freely in all matters affecting the child, with due weight given by age and maturity; right to be heard in judicial and administrative proceedings [2]
CRC Art. 15	Right of the child to freedom of association and peaceful assembly [2]
CRC Art. 15 (plain-language guide)	Children can join or set up groups and meet others, as long as this does not harm others [2]
General Comment No. 11	Art. 12 includes the right to be heard collectively [3]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The court found no existing ground to set aside the election on this basis and left it to Parliament [1]. This shows a legislative gap in electoral law on using minors in campaigns.
• CRC Arts. 12 and 15 give children rights to expression, association and assembly [2]. A blanket ban on children's presence may therefore conflict with participation rights. The distinction to draw is between voluntary participation and instrumental use.

Ethical

• In the judge's words, it is a "cheap and politically motivated act" and reflects "poor parenting" [1]. The concerns are autonomy, consent and manipulation of minors.
• Children who cannot vote are used as proxy persuaders of adult voters [1]. This raises questions about the integrity of the voter's free choice.

Social / Psychological

• Children are pulled into polarised adult politics, which risks peer conflict and harm to their emotional wellbeing. A behavioural-strategy view (Anil Pillai) was part of the debate [1].
• The child-rights view was represented by Andrew Sesuraj of TN Child Rights Watch [1].

Technological / Governance

• The YouTube reels children are made to produce at home [1] fall largely outside the regulation of physical campaigning. This is a regulatory blind spot for campaigning on digital platforms.

Democratic / Civic

• The case for involvement: early civic socialisation. GC 11 links education to children's capacity to influence political policy processes [3].
• The case against: there is a difference between civic education and partisan mobilisation.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• April 2026: school children seen at TVK's campaign at T. Nagar [1].
• May 2026: TVK wins the Tamil Nadu elections and C. Joseph Vijay becomes CM [1].
• 2026 (date not given in the source): the High Court dismisses the DMK candidate's petition and refers the issue to Parliament [1].
• 23 October 2026: The Hindu publishes a debate on the issue [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• TVK = Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam; founder C. Joseph Vijay [1].
• TVK won the May 2026 Tamil Nadu State elections [1].
• The judge who criticised the use of children in campaigns: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy [1].
• The court dismissed the petition; it did not set aside the election [1].
• The court said Parliament should decide whether such conduct is a ground for setting aside an election [1].
• CRC Article 12: right of the child to express views and be heard [2].
• CRC Article 15: freedom of association and peaceful assembly for children [2].
• The CRC has 54 articles and was adopted in 1989 [2].
• CRC General Comment No. 11 (on indigenous children) reads Art. 12 as including the right to be heard collectively [3].
• Tamil Nadu Child Rights Watch: Founder-Convenor Andrew Sesuraj [1].

8. The Rule Already Exists, but Breaking It Costs the Winner Nothing

• The Election Commission banned this in 2024
• On 5 February 2024, the Election Commission of India (ECI) told parties not to use children in campaigns "in any form whatsoever" [4].
• The ban covers handing out posters, shouting slogans, and joining rallies and meetings [4].
• It also covers using children to promote a party through songs, poems or party symbols [4].

• So section 9 of this note can now say it: an ECI rule does exist.

• The punishment falls on officials, not on candidates

• The directive warns of "severe disciplinary action" against election staff who allow violations in their area [4].
• It does not take away the seat of a candidate who breaks it.
• This is why the High Court found no ground to set aside the election and sent the question to Parliament [1].

• The ECI directive is an advisory (official guidance, not a law passed by Parliament). Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act (the list of corrupt practices that can cancel an election) does not mention children.

• What this means in practice

• A party can gain votes by using children and keep the seat it wins.
• The only cost is a warning after the result. That gives the party no reason to stop.

9. Why the T. Nagar Photos and the Home-Made Reels Are Hard to Catch

• The ECI rule has an exception for children who are just present
• A child standing with a parent or guardian near a leader is not a violation, as long as the child is not campaigning [4].

• So a photo of school children at a rally [1] does not prove a breach on its own. Someone has to show the children were brought there to campaign.

• The rule covers social media, but it binds the wrong people

• The ECI later told parties not to put out social-media content that goes against its ban on using children [5].
• So reels are not fully outside the rules, as section 5 of the note suggests. On paper, they are covered.
• But the rule binds parties and candidates. The reels the judge criticised were "home tasks" given to children [1]. Parents usually make them and post them on family accounts.

• If a party hints at what it wants and lets families do the rest, there is no party post to take down and no candidate to blame.

• The real problem is a missing link, not a missing rule

• The rule works against what a party does openly on stage.
• It does not reach content that families make for the party on their own accounts.

10. The Strongest Case for Letting Children Take Part

• The argument: children are citizens too, and politics ignores them
• Commentators point out that Indian parties have never treated children as a group with their own interests. They want parties to write a separate section for children in their manifestos (the promises a party publishes before an election) [7].
• Children cannot vote. So rallies, groups and public speech are their only way into politics. CRC Arts. 12 and 15 protect exactly these [2].
• The UN Committee says Art. 12 also covers children being heard as a group, and links education to children's ability to influence policy [3].

• A ban on "any form whatsoever" [4] also stops a teenager from joining a rally on climate or school fees because they care about it.

• What this argument gets right

• The 2024 ban is very wide. It does not separate a child's own views from a child being used.

• A blanket ban can silence the young people that CRC Art. 12 is meant to protect.

• Where it fails in the TVK case

• Art. 12 protects the child's own views on matters that affect the child [2].
• The TN complaint was different. Children were asked to tell their parents how to vote [1]. The message came from the party, and the child only carried it.

• Being heard means the child speaks for the child. Here, the child spoke for the party.

• The honest line to draw

• Protect children who speak on issues that affect them.
• Ban the party from using children to deliver its message to adult voters.

11. Why Each Party Complains Only When It Loses

• Rival parties raise the complaint against each other
• In 2022, Congress complained to the NCPCR (National Commission for Protection of Child Rights) that the Prime Minister had misused children in the Gujarat campaign [6].
• In 2026, a DMK candidate went to court against TVK's founder [1].

• The complaint changes sides depending on who wins. No party has led the way by refusing to use children.

• The complaint comes too late to help

• The DMK petition came after the result and was dismissed [1].
• By then, the parents have already voted and the reels are already online.

• A rule that is checked only through rivals' petitions after the vote protects the loser's case, not the child.

• Why this matters for the exam answer

• It shows the issue is not about one party or one state.
• The fix needs to work during the campaign, not after the result.

12. What Parliament and the ECI Can Do Without Overreaching

• Parliament should not make one photo enough to cancel an election
• Setting aside an election throws out the choice of lakhs of adult voters.
• A few children at a rally is not a fair reason to do that.

• A better design: add repeated, organised use of children to campaign under the RPA. Allow a fine or a ban from campaigning first, and keep cancelling the election only for serious, proven cases.

• The ECI should act during the campaign, not just warn officials

• The 2024 directive already ties itself to the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, as amended in 2016 [4]. Campaign work by children can be treated as work.

• The ECI can name the candidate in its notices while the campaign is still on. Today the threat falls on election staff [4].

• Make the party answerable for reels it asks for

• Under its social-media advisory [5], the ECI can make a party answer for content that its own appeals produced, even when families post it.

• The test should be simple. Did the party ask children to make it, or reward them for it?

• Keep a protected space for children's own voice

• Write in a clear exception for children speaking on issues that affect them, in line with CRC Art. 12 [2].
• Parties can also take up the call to write a children's section in their manifestos [7]. That treats children as people the policy is for, not as carriers of the party's message.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Report/Committee: ECI directive of 5 February 2024: "zero tolerance" for using children in campaigns in any form (posters, slogans, rallies, songs, party symbols). Exception: a child simply present with a parent [4]
• Law/Case: Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (amended 2016), linked to campaigns by the ECI directive [4]; RPA 1951 s.123 (corrupt practices) does not list using children, so the 2026 High Court dismissed the petition and left the question to Parliament [1]; CRC Arts. 12 and 15 [2]
• Comparison: 2022 Gujarat: Congress complained to NCPCR against the PM. 2026 Tamil Nadu: DMK petitioned the court against TVK. Different parties, same complaint, both raised by the rival [6][1]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Salient features of the Representation of People's Act; mechanisms, laws and institutions for the protection of vulnerable sections (children); international treaties.
• GS-IV: Ethics in public life; ethical concerns in political conduct; manipulation and consent.
• Essay: Democracy and childhood; the ethics of persuasion.
• Question stems: 1. "Using children as proxy campaigners undermines both childhood and the voter's free choice." Discuss, with reference to recent judicial observations. (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. 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. (GS-II) 3. Political campaigns on social media increasingly draw children in as content creators. Examine the ethical issues involved. (GS-IV)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Model Code of Conduct (ECI): check whether the Election Commission has issued advisories against using children in campaigns. Not verified in this note's sources.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951 (election petitions and corrupt practices): the legal route to "setting aside an election" mentioned by the court.
• Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and the JJ Act, 2015: possible statutory hooks for children's campaign work.
• UNCRC and India's ratification: the base of international obligations.
• Social-media regulation of campaigning (IT Rules, ECI social-media guidelines): relevant because of the reels angle.
• Voting age (Art. 326) and debates on lowering it: the line between participating in politics and voting.
• Personality cults and actor-politicians in Tamil Nadu politics: the historical context of the TVK phenomenon.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Representation of the People Act 1951 (Polity): This is the law governing election petitions; the court said Parliament must decide if this conduct voids an election.
• Corrupt practices (Polity): Section 123 lists acts that can void an election; using children is not listed, which is the legal gap.
• Model Code of Conduct (Polity): The ECI's campaign-conduct rules are the likely place to regulate children's use in rallies and reels.
• Freedom of association (Polity): CRC Article 15 gives children association and assembly rights, which any ban on their participation must balance.
• Child labour (Economy): Making children work on campaign content links to laws protecting children from exploitative work.
• Political rights (Polity): Children cannot vote or contest, so this clarifies what political participation is open to non-voters.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Outcome trap: the court dismissed the petition. It did not invalidate the election or ban the practice; the remarks are observations, not binding directions [1].
• Remedy trap: the court did not create a new ground for disqualification. It said the matter is for Parliament [1].
• CRC article mix-up: Art. 12 is views and being heard; Art. 15 is association and assembly [2]. Do not confuse them with Art. 32 (economic exploitation) or Art. 3 (best interests).
• Party mix-up: the petitioner was a DMK candidate, and the respondent was TVK's founder [1].
• "Children have no political rights" fallacy: children cannot vote, but the CRC grants rights to expression, association and assembly [2].