Two days of argument, one question from the Bench: can leaving out assets be ‘undue influence’? The Madras High Court reserves order on CM Vijay’s plea to reject the election petition against his Perambur win.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: After hearing the matter on October 7 and 8, the Madras High Court on Thursday (October 8) reserved its order on Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s application to reject an election petition by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency. Earlier in the hearing, the Court had asked whether non-disclosure of assets in an election affidavit would constitute ‘undue influence’ under the Representation of the People Act [C Joseph Vijay v. S Dinesh].
Justice V Lakshminarayanan heard the application (OA No. 909 of 2026 in ELP No. 50 of 2026) and indicated that the order is likely to be pronounced on Wednesday, October 14. No decision has been made on the application, and the questions put by the Court during the hearing are not findings.
What the Judge asked
On October 7, the judge had orally asked whether non-disclosure of assets worth about Rs 30 crore would amount to corrupt practice, and how it would matter to a voter whether Vijay’s assets were Rs 600 crore or more. On October 8, the Court moved to the statutory wording, asking whether ‘undue influence’ itself implies wilful suppression, and whether wilful suppression is required or any suppression counts.
The Court also asked whether the declaration of poramboke land among the assets could itself be an offence under the Representation of the People Act, noting that Vijay had also produced a sale deed for that property, and whether the election tribunal has the power to examine title to the property.
The petition in brief
The petitioner, S Dinesh, a voter, challenges Vijay’s election from Perambur, alleging discrepancies in the financial disclosures in Vijay’s election affidavit, including undisclosed assets. These are the election petitioner’s allegations. They are untested and have not been decided by the Court.
Arguments for the election petitioner
Advocate Ashok, for the election petitioner, argued that any suppression, direct or indirect, amounts to undue influence, and that failing to disclose assets is an offence under Section 123 of the Act. Indirect suppression, it was submitted, still influences a voter’s mind, and non-disclosure of substantial property should be treated in the same way as non-disclosure of criminal antecedents.
The petitioner contended that whether the suppression was wilful can be decided only at trial and not while deciding an application for rejection. On the declaration of government poramboke land among the assets, it was submitted that this was an improper disclosure, and that the validity of the sale deed is a question for trial. The petitioner also argued that a returning officer’s scrutiny is summary and cannot be detailed within about 24 hours, so the absence of an objection at nomination does not bar the issue being raised in the petition. The petition, it was submitted, is proper, meets all requirements and should not be rejected.
Arguments for the Chief Minister
Appearing for Vijay, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that minor discrepancies in an election affidavit are not grounds to set aside an election, and that the petition does not show how the alleged discrepancies affected the result. It was submitted that the petition therefore lacks material particulars.
It was also argued that the petition does not plead that the petitioner is a voter in the constituency, leaving open whether the requirements of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act are met. The affidavit was a public document, the Chief Minister’s side contended, so any discrepancy could have been raised with the concerned officer at the time of nomination.
Distinguishing non-disclosure of assets from non-disclosure of criminal antecedents, it was argued that voters need to know criminal history, whereas they already know Vijay is wealthy. Additional wealth, the submission went, cannot be equated with the criminalisation of politics, and the petitioner must show which voters would have changed their vote. The side also contended that whether the declared property and the sale deed relating to it are genuine can be tested only at trial.
ALSO READ: Four Election Pleas Now Challenge CM Vijay’s Perambur Win: Madras HC Takes Up Petitions
What turns on the order
The order will decide whether the election petition proceeds to trial or is rejected at the threshold. It is likely to address two questions: whether the petition pleads the material particulars and the petitioner’s status as an elector that the Representation of the People Act requires, and whether suppression of asset details can fall within ‘undue influence’ without proof of wilfulness.
The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the petition or of the allegations, and the Chief Minister continues to hold office unless his election is set aside after trial.
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 and 8, 2026 (order reserved; likely to be pronounced on October 14, 2026)
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, with Advocates Dixita Gohil and Pranjal Agarwal (Gohil Agarwal Law Chambers), for the Chief Minister; Advocate Ashok for the election petitioner