The Madras High Court dismissed petitions seeking scrutiny of alleged discrepancies in election affidavits filed by TVK leader Vijay, Udhayanidhi Stalin, and Tamilisai Soundararajan during Tamil Nadu Assembly elections 2026.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a set of petitions seeking scrutiny of alleged inconsistencies in election affidavits submitted byTamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay, former Deputy Chief Minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin, and BJP leader Tamilisai Soundararajan.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan rejected the petitions after previously seeking responses from the Election Commission of India (ECI), Income Tax Department and other concerned authorities.
The petitions questioned the accuracy and completeness of financial disclosures made by the candidates in Form 26 affidavits submitted along with their nomination papers during the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, 2026.
Plea Against Vijay Over Asset Disclosures: One of the petitions, filed by V. Vignesh, raised objections regarding alleged differences in the asset declarations made by Vijay in two separate Form 26 affidavits filed from the Perambur and Tiruchi East Assembly constituencies.
Vijay, who contested the 2026 elections through his political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), later became the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner alleged that the affidavits contained substantially different disclosures relating to movable assets.
According to the plea, Vijay had declared movable assets worth approximately Rs 224 crore in the affidavit filed from Tiruchi East, while another affidavit filed from Perambur reflected movable assets of around Rs 105 crore.
The petitioner argued that the difference of more than Rs 100 crore raised questions about whether the disclosures were complete and whether the variation had been properly explained. During the earlier hearing, the Court had orally observed that if the allegations were found to be correct, such discrepancies could amount to an irregularity. The Court had therefore sought explanations from Vijay, the Election Commission and the Income Tax Department.
Allegations Concerning Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Affidavits: Another petition, filed by R. Kumaravelu, challenged the disclosures made by Udhayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavits submitted during the 2021 and 2026 Assembly elections. The petitioner sought an independent inquiry into alleged differences in asset declarations made over the two election cycles.
The plea alleged that certain assets shown in earlier affidavits were not reflected later, while also raising questions over variations in loan disclosures, financial transactions and information contained in corporate records. It was further claimed that some financial details disclosed in the affidavits required closer examination to determine whether they were accurately represented.
The Income Tax Department had subsequently filed an affidavit pointing out certain discrepancies in the financial disclosures.
Petition Against Tamilisai Soundararajan: A third petition, filed by Goutam Siva, raised objections regarding alleged inconsistencies in the income disclosures made by Tamilisai Soundararajan. The petitioner compared her 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election affidavit with disclosures made during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and claimed that certain variations required investigation. Soundararajan’s counsel opposed the petition and argued that the challenge was not maintainable.
It was submitted that disputes relating to the validity of a candidate’s election or nomination process must be raised through an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and not through a separate writ petition. The counsel also contended that the allegations were frivolous and lacked legal basis.
Court Rejects All Petitions
After considering the submissions and material placed before it, the Madras High Court dismissed all three petitions. The Court’s order effectively declined to proceed with the requested scrutiny or investigation into the alleged affidavit discrepancies.
The dismissal means that the allegations raised against the three political leaders will not be examined further through these proceedings. The ruling also highlights the legal distinction between challenges relating to election disclosures and disputes regarding the validity of an election, which are generally governed by the statutory mechanism under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.