The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned whether the alleged omission of assets worth Rs 30 crore from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s election affidavit could amount to a “corrupt practice” when he had disclosed assets of around Rs 600 crore, as it heard his plea to reject an election petition challenging his victory from Perambur.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan also questioned whether such an omission could have materially influenced voters, particularly when Vijay had won the Assembly constituency by a margin of 53,715 votes. The observations were made during arguments and do not amount to a finding on the allegations against the Chief Minister.
Court questions impact
The case arises from an election petition filed by S Dinesh, a voter from Perambur, who has alleged several discrepancies in the declaration of immovable properties in Vijay’s election affidavit. Dinesh has sought to have the election declared void, alleging “wilful and deliberate” suppression, misrepresentation and false declarations.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the court examined whether the alleged discrepancies, even if established, were of such a nature that they could sustain a challenge to Vijay’s election.
“He had declared 600 crore in assets. Can missing out 30 crore worth of assets amount to corrupt practice?” Justice Lakshminarayanan asked.
The judge also raised the question of whether a voter who had decided to support Vijay would have changed that decision because of the alleged omission. Vijay had defeated DMK candidate R D Shekar in Perambur by more than 50,000 votes.
CA example cited
The court drew an analogy with asset declarations made by judges and questioned whether every omission could necessarily be attributed personally to the individual making the declaration.
Justice Lakshminarayanan observed that judges themselves could rely on chartered accountants while preparing their asset statements and asked whether Vijay, who had extensive assets, would necessarily have prepared every part of the declaration himself.
The judge wondered whether an asset inadvertently missed by a chartered accountant could, by itself, provide sufficient grounds for setting aside an election.
The questions assume significance because an election can be invalidated only on grounds recognised under election law. The court is presently examining Vijay’s application seeking rejection of the petition at the threshold rather than deciding whether the allegations against him have been proved.
Petitioner alleges suppression
Dinesh has alleged discrepancies involving several properties disclosed by Vijay. One allegation concerns 50 cents of land in Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal, which Vijay declared as property purchased by him but which the petitioner claims forms part of government poromboke land.
Questions have also been raised over a property in Porur, with the petitioner alleging discrepancies relating to its extent and purchase price.
During arguments, the petitioner’s side maintained that candidates contesting elections have a duty to make complete and accurate disclosures and cannot provide false information or suppress material particulars in their nomination documents.
The petitioner has placed property-related documents before the court in support of the allegations. The veracity and legal significance of those claims are yet to be adjudicated.
Vijay denies allegations
Vijay has denied suppressing his assets and has sought dismissal of the election petition without a full trial.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the Chief Minister, has argued that the petition lacks the material particulars necessary to sustain an election challenge and fails to demonstrate how the alleged discrepancies materially affected the result.
Vijay has described the allegations as “false, unfounded, baseless and completely misconceived”, contending that the petition essentially subjects individual entries in his Form 26 election affidavit to microscopic scrutiny without establishing that any alleged variation was material to his election.
His counsel had also argued earlier that minor errors or discrepancies in an election affidavit could not automatically be treated as non-disclosure or improper acceptance of a nomination.
Election result challenged
Vijay contested the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election from Perambur and secured 1,20,365 votes, defeating Shekar, who polled 66,650 votes. His victory has subsequently been challenged through separate election petitions.
Apart from Dinesh, voter T N Lakshmi Narasimhan and defeated DMK candidate Shekar have also moved the High Court questioning Vijay’s election. Their petitions have raised issues relating to disclosures in his election affidavit.
Vijay has moved applications seeking rejection of the election challenges, requiring the court to first determine whether the pleadings disclose sufficient legal grounds for the cases to proceed.
The High Court has not ruled on whether Vijay actually suppressed assets or whether any alleged discrepancy constitutes corrupt practice under election law. Wednesday’s remarks were oral observations made while testing the petitioner’s case and Vijay’s plea for its rejection.
Further arguments in the matter are scheduled for October 8.