Published Oct 07, 2026 | 5:17 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 07, 2026 | 5:17 PM
Madras High Court.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday, October 7, heard submissions from a voter in the Perambur Assembly constituency, who alleged that Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, who won the Assembly election from the constituency, had concealed details of a property worth around ₹30 crore in his election affidavit.
Vijay won the Perambur Assembly constituency by a margin of 53,715 votes. Subsequently, a voter from the constituency, Dinesh, filed a petition challenging his election.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel claimed that details of a property worth around ₹30 crore in Panruti had been omitted from Vijay’s election affidavit. He argued that a candidate cannot provide incorrect information or suppress material details in an election affidavit. The survey number, sale deed and other documents relating to the property had been submitted before the court, the counsel said.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the election petition was not based on vague allegations and that supporting documents had been produced. He also alleged that Vijay had disclosed in his affidavit that he owned 50 cents of land at Vilpatti in Kodaikanal. However, revenue records reportedly showed the land as government poramboke land.
The petitioner also cited a Supreme Court judgment stating that even leaving the property-related section of an election affidavit blank could constitute grounds for rejection of a nomination. He argued that the alleged suppression of property details could be fully examined only through an election petition, as voters are not permitted to participate in the scrutiny of nominations and therefore cannot raise objections at that stage.
Also Read: Supreme Court closes 2003 Tamil Nadu Assembly privilege case
During the hearing, Justice Lakshminarayanan raised several questions about whether the alleged omission could actually invalidate Vijay’s election.
The judge asked whether an election could be declared void merely because a candidate had understated or omitted certain assets. He also questioned how the alleged non-disclosure of a ₹30 crore property would affect Vijay’s election victory when, according to his affidavit, the actor-turned-politician had disclosed assets worth around ₹600 crore.
The judge further asked how a person with substantial assets could be expected to know the location and details of every property. He also questioned whether Vijay’s election could be declared invalid for an error allegedly committed by his auditor, particularly when he was contesting an election for the first time.
As the arguments on behalf of the petitioner remained incomplete, the court adjourned the hearing to Thursday.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
