Can Rs 30 crore asset non-disclosure amount to corrupt practice when about Rs 600 crore was declared? The Madras High Court put that question orally while hearing Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s plea to reject an election petition against his Perambur win.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: Hearing the Chief Minister’s application to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (October 7) questioned whether non-disclosure of assets worth Rs 30 crore in his nomination papers would amount to corrupt practice, given that C Joseph Vijay had otherwise declared assets of about Rs 600 crore [C Joseph Vijay v. S Dinesh].
The remarks were made orally by Justice V Lakshminarayanan in OA No. 909 of 2026 in ELP No. 50 of 2026. No final order has been passed on the application, and the Court’s questions are not findings.
Why Vijay wants the petition rejected
Appearing for Vijay, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the election petition did not disclose material particulars. Whether the petitioner had satisfied Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act was itself a question, it was submitted, because nothing was pleaded to establish that he was a voter in the constituency. It was also argued that minor discrepancies in an election affidavit are no ground to set aside an election, as there were no material particulars to show how they affected the result.
ALSO READ: Four Election Pleas Now Challenge CM Vijay’s Perambur Win: Madras HC Takes Up Petitions
What the election petitioner alleges
The voter, S Dinesh, moved the High Court against Vijay’s win in Perambur, alleging several discrepancies in the financial disclosures in Vijay’s election affidavit. These are the election petitioner’s allegations and are yet to be tried.
The judge’s questions
Orally, the judge remarked that Vijay, a popular actor, would have had a lot of properties in his name, and that it was unlikely he had prepared the list of assets himself, as that might have been done by a Chartered Accountant. Would a failure by the CA to declare some assets, the judge wondered, be a ground to challenge the election itself? Drawing a comparison with judges, who declare assets on taking oath, the Court asked:
He had declared 600 crore in assets. Can missing out 30 crore worth of assets amount to corrupt practice?
The election petitioner was also asked whether non-disclosure of assets worth Rs 30 crore would have made any difference to a voter who had already decided to vote for Vijay, and whether it would make a difference to a voter in Perambur.
What the hearing does not decide
The application tests how far a gap in an election affidavit can support an election petition, and whether the petition pleads the material particulars the Representation of the People Act requires. The Chief Minister contests the petition on both pleading and merits, while the petitioner alleges discrepancies in the affidavit. No view has been expressed on the merits of either side, and the Court’s remarks at the hearing are not a decision on the petition.
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. S Dinesh [OA No. 909 of 2026 in ELP No. 50 of 2026]
Bench: Justice V Lakshminarayanan, Madras High Court
Date of Hearing: October 7, 2026
Appearances: For the Chief Minister, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan