Chennai: The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned whether the alleged omission of assets worth around ₹30 crore from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s election affidavit could amount to a “corrupt practice”, particularly when he had declared total assets of around ₹600 crore.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan raised the issue while hearing Vijay’s application seeking dismissal of an election petition challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency.
The court questioned whether an error by the chartered accountant who prepared the asset statement could be sufficient grounds to set aside an election. The judge observed that elected representatives often rely on professionals to prepare financial declarations and asked whether an omission by such a professional should automatically affect the validity of an election.
The court also questioned whether the alleged omission could have influenced voters, noting that Vijay had won the Perambur seat by a margin of more than 50,000 votes.
The observations came during the hearing of an election petition filed by S Dinesh, a Perambur voter, who has challenged Vijay’s election on allegations of discrepancies in his 2026 election affidavit.
The petitioner has alleged that Vijay deliberately suppressed or misrepresented information about several immovable properties. Among the properties under scrutiny is 50 cents of land in Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal. Vijay had declared it as property he purchased, while the petitioner has alleged that the land forms part of government poromboke land.
The petitioner has also raised questions about the disclosure relating to a property in Porur, alleging discrepancies in its extent and purchase price.
Dinesh has sought a declaration that Vijay’s election should be declared void, alleging “wilful and deliberate” suppression, misrepresentation and false declarations in the election affidavit.
Vijay has denied the allegations and has asked the High Court to dismiss the petition at the preliminary stage. Appearing for the chief minister, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the election petition lacked the material particulars required to sustain such a challenge.
In his reply before the court, Vijay described the allegations as false, baseless and misconceived. He argued that the petition relied on detailed comparisons of property values and other entries in Form 26 but failed to establish that the alleged discrepancies were material enough to affect the election.
Vijay also argued that the petitioner had not demonstrated any connection between the alleged omissions and the election result. According to his submission, the voters were aware of his public profile and chose him as a political alternative.
The court's questions focused on whether the alleged asset discrepancies were legally sufficient to constitute corrupt practice and whether they could have materially influenced the electoral outcome.
The High Court is yet to reach a final conclusion on the matter. Further arguments in the case will continue on October 8.
The proceedings could determine whether the allegations concerning Vijay’s election affidavit are sufficient to warrant a full examination of the election challenge or whether the petition should be rejected at the preliminary stage.
Reader Comments 0