Madras HC seeks response on plea alleging asset discrepancies in Vijay’s poll affidavits
Chennai, April 20 : The Madras High Court on Monday issued notices on a petition seeking an investigation into alleged inconsistencies in the assets declared by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay in his nomination affidavits for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S A Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notices to Vijay, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), the Election Commission of India, and the Returning Officers of the Perambur and Tiruchy (East) constituencies.
The matter has been posted for further hearing next week.
During the proceedings, the Bench orally observed that there appeared to be a significant irregularity in the disclosures. It noted that assets worth nearly Rs 100 crore were allegedly not reflected in one of the affidavits.
“This is an irregularity. More than Rs 100 crore has not been disclosed in one constituency,” the court remarked.
The petition was filed by Chennai-based V. Vignesh, who contended that there are glaring inconsistencies between the affidavits submitted by Vijay before the Returning Officers in Perambur and Tiruchy (East).
According to the plea, Vijay declared assets worth Rs 115.13 crore in the Perambur nomination, while the disclosure in Tiruchy (East) stood at Rs 220.15 crore.
The petitioner argued that the substantial variation between the two declarations remains unexplained and unsupported by any documentary evidence. He submitted that such a discrepancy raises serious concerns about possible suppression of assets, beneficial ownership structures, and potential concealment of material particulars.
Vignesh further contended that the inconsistency cannot be attributed to clerical errors or estimation differences. Instead, he argued that either one of the affidavits is incorrect or the underlying financial disclosures are flawed, thereby necessitating a thorough probe by the Income Tax Department.
Seeking urgent intervention, the petitioner urged the court to direct the Income Tax (Investigation) wing to examine the asset declarations and submit a report to the respective Returning Officers.
He also requested that the findings be made public before polling day on April 23, enabling voters to make an informed decision.
The case assumes significance as Vijay, a prominent actor-turned-politician, is contesting from both constituencies in a high-stakes electoral battle.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S A Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notices to Vijay, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), the Election Commission of India, and the Returning Officers of the Perambur and Tiruchy (East) constituencies.
The matter has been posted for further hearing next week.
During the proceedings, the Bench orally observed that there appeared to be a significant irregularity in the disclosures. It noted that assets worth nearly Rs 100 crore were allegedly not reflected in one of the affidavits.
“This is an irregularity. More than Rs 100 crore has not been disclosed in one constituency,” the court remarked.
The petition was filed by Chennai-based V. Vignesh, who contended that there are glaring inconsistencies between the affidavits submitted by Vijay before the Returning Officers in Perambur and Tiruchy (East).
According to the plea, Vijay declared assets worth Rs 115.13 crore in the Perambur nomination, while the disclosure in Tiruchy (East) stood at Rs 220.15 crore.
The petitioner argued that the substantial variation between the two declarations remains unexplained and unsupported by any documentary evidence. He submitted that such a discrepancy raises serious concerns about possible suppression of assets, beneficial ownership structures, and potential concealment of material particulars.
Vignesh further contended that the inconsistency cannot be attributed to clerical errors or estimation differences. Instead, he argued that either one of the affidavits is incorrect or the underlying financial disclosures are flawed, thereby necessitating a thorough probe by the Income Tax Department.
Seeking urgent intervention, the petitioner urged the court to direct the Income Tax (Investigation) wing to examine the asset declarations and submit a report to the respective Returning Officers.
He also requested that the findings be made public before polling day on April 23, enabling voters to make an informed decision.
The case assumes significance as Vijay, a prominent actor-turned-politician, is contesting from both constituencies in a high-stakes electoral battle.
