Madras HC questions claim that Vijay’s alleged asset non-disclosure can void his election

The Madras High Court, on October 7, asked how alleged discrepancies in Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s election affidavit could amount to undue influence on voters or justify setting aside his victory from Perambur.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan raised the questions while hearing Vijay’s plea seeking dismissal of an election petition challenging his victory in the April 2026 Assembly polls. 

The election petitioner, S Dinesh, has alleged discrepancies involving several properties in Vijay’s 2026 nomination affidavit.

The judge asked the petitioner’s counsel how the alleged non-disclosure of assets worth around Rs 30 crore could have influenced voters when Vijay had declared assets worth more than Rs 600 crore. He also questioned whether a voter would have been swayed by differences of a few crores or lakhs in the declared value of properties.

The judge further asked whether Vijay, a prominent film actor with several properties, could personally be expected to know every detail in his asset declaration, particularly if the affidavit had been prepared with the assistance of a chartered accountant.

Justice Lakshminarayanan also questioned the allegation that the returning officer improperly accepted Vijay’s nomination. He asked how a returning officer could be expected to verify the correctness of the assets declared in the affidavit. 

The petitioner’s counsel, NC Ashok Kumar, argued that the returning officer’s role was limited to a summary inquiry and that questions about whether a declaration was knowingly false or deliberately made could only be established through evidence during the trial of an election petition.

He relied on a 2009 judgment of Justice V Ramasubramanian in Krishnamoorthy versus Sivakumar, which held that incorrect, incomplete, false or withheld information could interfere with the free exercise of a voter’s electoral right. He said the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015.

The counsel also cited the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in Resurgence India versus Election Commission of India, which held that a voter’s right to know about a candidate is an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

After hearing the submissions, Justice Lakshminarayanan told senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Vijay, that the petitioner’s reliance on the judgments had changed the complexion of the case and asked him to respond on October 8.

One allegation concerns 50 cents of land at Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal. Vijay’s affidavit reportedly stated that he purchased the agricultural land for Rs 30,000 in 1997 and that its present market value was around Rs 20 lakh. The petitioner claims revenue records show that the land is government poromboke land.

The petitioner has also alleged discrepancies in the details of a non-agricultural property in Porur. Vijay’s affidavit stated that he purchased 33,955 square feet for Rs 9.13 crore in 2010, while registration records allegedly show that the purchase involved 20,773 square feet for Rs 7.5 crore.

Another allegation concerns a commercial property in Padi. According to the petition, Vijay’s affidavit described an 11,854-square-foot building valued at Rs 7 crore, purchased for Rs 1.95 crore in 2009, with Rs 3.9 crore spent on construction. The petitioner claims the property, with a constructed area of 23,460 square feet, was actually sold for Rs 35 crore on February 12, 2026.

The petitioner further alleges that Vijay had not purchased the Padi property as stated in the affidavit but had received it through an exchange deed involving a property in Korattur. The petition claims that this mode of acquisition and the subsequent Rs 35-crore sale were not disclosed.

In the case of Vijay’s bungalow at Neelangarai, the petitioner has disputed the description of the property as inherited. According to the petition, Vijay’s father S A Chandrasekhar purchased the property in 2003 and settled it in favour of his son in 2005.

The settlement deed valued the property, spread over 17,100 square feet with a 5,500-square-foot building, at Rs 2.75 crore. The petitioner has alleged that Vijay’s 2026 affidavit instead stated that Rs 18.73 crore had been spent on an 18,633-square-foot built-up area and placed the current market value at around Rs 20 crore.

Vijay has denied the allegations and sought dismissal of the election petition without a trial. His application argues that the allegations are based on conjecture and do not contain the material particulars necessary to establish a cause of action.

His counsel has argued that the affidavit disclosed assets worth more than Rs 600 crore, along with income tax and other details, and that discrepancies in the extent, value or mode of acquisition of properties already disclosed cannot by themselves invalidate his nomination or election.

Vijay secured 1,20,365 votes in Perambur and won by 53,715 votes. His application argues that the election petition does not establish how the alleged discrepancies affected the outcome or interfered with any voter’s electoral rights.

The petitioner, however, argued that the margin of victory was irrelevant at this stage and that the court should not assess the truth or materiality of the allegations while deciding whether the election petition should proceed to trial.

The hearing was adjourned to October 8.