CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has questioned whether non-disclosure of assets worth Rs 30 crore in the affidavit accompanying the nomination papers of Chief Minister and TVK chief C Joseph Vijay vitiates his victory in the April polls and if that’s good enough reason to set aside his victory.
“How does suppression of properties amount to undue influence on the voters? Will non-disclosure of Rs 30 crore in the affidavit amount to undue influence and so that the victory has to be set aside,” asked Justice V Lakshminarayanan, and added that Vijay has declared Rs 600 crore in the affidavit.
The queries were raised on Wednesday during the arguments on the petition filed by Vijay praying for rejecting the election plea filed against his victory in Perambur constituency in the April 2026 polls. When the counsel for the election petitioners, NC Ashok Kumar, stated that one bungalow was left out in the affidavit, the judge wondered if Vijay, being a superstar, could know about all his properties.
‘Concealing asset details interferes with voter rights’
The judge added only a chartered accountant (auditor) would have furnished the details of assets and liabilities.
Ashok Kumar, representing S Dinesh and TN Lakshmi Narasimhan who are registered voters of Perambur, said the details of the affidavit are compared with records and there are discrepancies between Form 26 (affidavit) and the records, and the electors are misinformed.
Contesting polls is a statutory right and if he (Vijay) is contesting, he has to go by the statutes that mandate the disclosure of full details of assets and criminal antecedents, the counsel said.
Nobody had compelled Vijay to contest in the polls and once he contests, he has to comply with the statutory provisions. The margin of victory, about 53,000, does not matter, but what matters is the non-compliance with the statutes and whether such non-compliance materially affected the poll outcome, Ashok Kumar argued.
“Undue influence is explained under Section 123 (2) of Representation of People Act. Interfering with the voters’ exercise of electoral rights amounts to undue influence. Concealment of details of assets, liabilities, criminal antecedents, and education amounts to such interference of exercise of electoral rights,” he said.