Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court on Friday (May 29, 2026) narrated a personal incident and said, therefore, it was worth going into the issue of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay having made an appeal to children to ensure that the adults in their families vote for his Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly polls.

Presiding over a summer vacation Bench along with Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, the senior judge told senior counsel S. Muralidhar, (a retired Chief Justice) representing TVK, that he was unwell about three weeks ago and hence, paid a visit to his family doctor in Madurai. “He (the doctor) said that when he was about to go for voting, his grandchild said, Thatha you must vote only for...”

Responding to it, Mr. Muralidhar made the moment lighter by saying: “We have in our tradition, children advising the father. Your Lordship’s name also symbolises that.” The senior counsel was referring to the meaning of the name Swaminathan (‘Teacher of the Lord’), the other name of Lord Murugan who according to a legend had turned into a Guru to his father Lord Shiva.

When the judges said they shall admit the case filed by Cuddalore based advocate L. Vasuki and grant time for TVK to file its counter affidavit, the senior counsel replied that there was a problem in admitting the case as a public interest litigation petition. He urged the court to simply adjourn the matter so that he could study the matter in detail before filing the counter affidavit.

“The petition is entirely based on news reports. Your Lordships may permit a proper reply or response to be filed because it involves very interesting questions of law on the powers of the Election Commission of India (EC),”he said and highlighted that even violations of Model Code of Conduct could be gone into by the Commission only during elections and not after the declaration of results.

“Once the election gets over, the EC goes out of the picture. Any allegation of electoral corrupt practice raised, thereafter, could be dealt with only in individual election petitions. So, the question here really is what are the powers of the ECI, after the conclusion of the elections, to conduct an inquiry as sought by the present petitioner,” Mr. Muralidhar told the Division Bench.

Further, stating that Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 terms ‘undue influence’ as a corrupt practice, he said: “The adjective used in the Act is ‘undue.’ Now what can constitute undue influence would have to be tested vis-a-vis the election of individual candidates because there is no concept of disqualifying a party. There’s only a consequence of derecognition of party.”

He urged the court to grant him some time to study the issue in depth and then assist the court. On his part, senior counsel N.R. Elango and S.R. Rajagopal representing Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) respectively told the court the allegation levelled by the PIL petitioner against their clients was different from the one levelled against TVK.

Since DMK and AIADMK had been accused of bribing voters in Alangulam, Mylapore, and Thirumangalam constituencies, the only remedy is to file election petitions and not a PIL petition, the counsel said. Taking a dig at them, Justice Swaminathan said: “Mr. Rajagopal, I think you must sail with him (Mr. Elango).” Later, the Division Bench adjourned the hearing to July 1, 2026, for filing of counter affidavits by all the respondents.