Madras High Court Questions Plea Seeking Annulment of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay's Election Over Undisclosed Assets

Court Hearing

The Madras High Court has questioned whether a candidate failing to declare assets worth about 30 crore rupees should be seen as a corrupt act, noting that an individual who already declared roughly 600 crore rupees in property might have simply had their chartered accountant miss a few items by mistake. A voter named S. Dinesh filed a petition challenging the election victory of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam leader Joseph C. Vijay from the Perambur assembly constituency, alleging that the election affidavit contained wrong statements and missing details. According to Sakshi, the petitioner's counsel argued that a property in Panruti worth about 30 crore rupees was left out, while land in Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal listed as purchased by Vijay is actually government Poramboke land in revenue records, alongside objections raised over the extent and purchase price of a Porur property.

Arguments and Defense

Denying the allegations, Vijay's senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that minor gaps and affidavit errors are not grounds to invalidate an election, and noted that the petitioner failed to show how these asset details influenced the final vote count. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan remarked during the proceedings that a voter who had already decided to vote for Vijay would not change their mind simply because certain details were left out. In the 2026 assembly election from Perambur, Vijay secured 1,20,365 votes against rival R.D. Shekhar who got 66,650 votes, giving Vijay a majority of 53,715 votes. Vijay has asked the high court to dismiss the petition challenging his election, with further hearings scheduled to continue.

Context

Election affidavits are formal legal declarations that candidates in India must file to disclose their assets, liabilities, and criminal records before contesting polls. Courts routinely examine whether minor reporting oversights in such filings materially affected the election outcome or merely reflect clerical errors by financial advisors.