Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay has told the Madras High Court that merely claiming that voters were “emotionally swayed” during an election campaign cannot be a valid ground to challenge his election victory.

Vijay made the submission while seeking dismissal of an election petition challenging his victory from the Tiruchirappalli (East) constituency.

The bench headed by Justice V Lakshminarayanan is likely to hear the plea on August 31.

The election petition has been filed by DMK candidate Inigo Irudayaraj, who has alleged that Vijay failed to disclose material information about pending cases against him and did not provide details of his election expenses.

Irudayaraj has also alleged that Vijay indulged in corrupt practices by involving children in his election campaign. On these grounds, he has sought to have Vijay's election declared void and has further sought a declaration that he be declared the winning candidate.

The petitioner has also asked the High Court to stay any bye-election to the constituency while the election petition is pending, arguing that holding a bye-election could render the proceedings infructuous.

In his counter affidavit, however, Vijay argued that the election petition does not disclose a valid cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Responding to the allegation concerning children being used in the campaign, Vijay said the petitioner had failed to explain how their alleged participation actually influenced the election result.

He argued that simply stating that voters were “emotionally swayed” was not enough. According to Vijay, the petitioner was required to place material facts before the court showing how the alleged violation affected the outcome of the election.

Vijay also pointed out that the petition did not specify how the alleged participation of children resulted in any particular number of votes being cast in his favour or otherwise materially affected the result.

He further argued that although the petitioner had relied on a communication issued by the Election Commission of India, there was no explanation as to how the communication could be treated as an order falling within the scope of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act.

Vijay maintained that the petitioner had merely referred to various provisions of the Representation of the People Act, the Conduct of Election Rules, the Model Code of Conduct and ECI directions, without setting out the basic facts required to establish a case.

He contended that simply using terms such as “materially affected”, “suppressed”, “concealed” and “corrupt practice” does not, by itself, create a valid cause of action.

Vijay has therefore urged the Madras High Court to reject the election petition challenging his victory.

Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v S Inigo Irudayaraj
Case No.: OA 903 of 2026