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 sought a response from the Election Commission of India on allegations that Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam used children during the 2026 Tamil Nadu election campaign, while questioning whether a political party itself could face disqualification for corrupt practices.
A retired IPS officer moved the Supreme Court of India challenging Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar for not inviting C Joseph Vijay to form government despite TVK emerging as the single largest party, seeking a floor test to prove majority.
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.
CBI has questioned TVK chief and actor Vijay in connection with the Karur stampede tragedy that claimed 41 lives during a political rally. The probe comes at a crucial time ahead of the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.
Today, On 26th November, The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that political parties are spreading unnecessary fear and creating widespread confusion among citizens about SIR-related concerns raised in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.
The Election Commission of India will announce the schedule for a nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the coming days. The first phase will cover over 10 States, including election-bound Assam, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry, and West Bengal.
On Wednesday(March 27),The Madras High Court dismissed a petition challenging Tamil Nadu’s election notification, ensuring the scheduled elections proceed as planned. The petitioner sought to advance the vote counting date, but the court ruled it lacked legal basis and didn’t address significant public concern. The ruling upholds the electoral process’s sanctity and the Election Commission’s authority.
