Madras High Court issued notice to Vijay, Election Commission of India and Income Tax Department over affidavit discrepancies. Bench noted apparent irregularity but sought responses before examining merits of case further.
A notice was issued by the Madras High Court to actor-politician Vijay, the Election Commission of India, and the Income Tax Department on a petition alleging discrepancies in the election affidavits submitted by him for the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.
The matter was placed before the Madras High Court, where it was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadikari and Justice Arul Murugan. At the initial stage, the Court acknowledged that the nature and scale of the discrepancy appeared to reflect an irregularity. However, the Court refrained from deciding the case on its merits at that point and instead issued notices to the relevant parties, directing them to respond before the matter was taken further.
It said,
“This is an irregularity. More than 100 crores not disclosed in one of the constituencies. One week [for instructions]. Private party notice process as well as private notice.”
Factual Backgrounds:
This case is closely tied to actor Vijay’s entry into politics. He formally launched his party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, in 2024, and the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections will be his first electoral contest. As part of his campaign strategy, Vijay filed nominations from two constituencies: Perambur and Tiruchi East.
Although Indian election law allows a candidate to contest from more than one constituency, it requires a separate affidavit for each nomination, even when the candidate is the same person.
Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, every candidate must disclose their assets, liabilities, criminal cases, and financial interests. This disclosure is made through Form 26 affidavits, mandated by the Election Commission of India. The requirement stems from Supreme Court rulings like Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, which made candidate transparency a fundamental part of free and fair elections.
These affidavits are crucial because voters rely on them to assess a candidate’s financial integrity and any false declaration or concealment can lead to legal consequences, including disqualification or criminal prosecution.
A dispute later arose over alleged inconsistencies between the affidavits submitted by Vijay for these two constituencies.
The dispute was initiated by a petition filed by V Vignesh, who claimed that the Form 26 affidavits contained contradictory statements regarding Vijay’s movable assets. The Tiruchi East affidavit reportedly disclosed movable assets worth Rs 224 crore, while the Perambur affidavit disclosed movable assets of Rs 105 crore. The petitioner argued that the difference amounting to over Rs 100 crore was too large to be treated as a minor mistake.
According to the petition, the Perambur affidavit did not provide any explanation for the apparent shortfall, nor did it clarify where the missing amount was accounted for. The petitioner further contended that this could amount to suppression of material information, an issue of serious concern under election law because it affects transparency and voters’ ability to make informed choices.
This matter raises important concerns at the intersection of election law, transparency, and public accountability. Courts have consistently held that even minor inaccuracies in affidavits can carry legal consequences, and significant discrepancies may cast doubt on the credibility of disclosures made to voters.
If proven, such discrepancies could invite scrutiny under election law, potentially affecting a candidate’s eligibility or even the validity of the election. However, the case is still at a preliminary stage, with the court yet to examine evidence or determine whether any concealment was intentional.
Case Title: V Vignesh Vs Director General Income Tax.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE