CHENNAI: The Madras High Court will pronounce orders on Wednesday, October 14, on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and TVK president C Joseph Vijay seeking dismissal of an election petition challenging his victory in the Perambur constituency in the April 2026 Assembly polls.
The election petition filed by voter S Dinesh seeks to nullify Vijay’s victory, mainly alleging that he failed to disclose full details of his assets and thereby exerted undue influence on the electorate.
After hearing arguments on Thursday from senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Vijay, and advocate NC Ashok Kumar, appearing for Dinesh, Justice V Lakshminarayanan said, "The orders will be pronounced on Wednesday, Oct. 14."
Ashok Kumar submitted that Vijay’s alleged non-disclosure of his assets amounted to undue influence and violated election laws. He said Vijay had deliberately suppressed details of his properties and that voters could raise the issue through an election petition even if it was not raised during scrutiny of the nomination papers by the Returning Officer.
"During scrutiny, the RO is doing a summary inquiry. He cannot conduct a detailed inquiry within the stipulated 24 hours. And so, the voter can approach the court through the election petition," Ashok Kumar submitted.
He alleged that Vijay had made false declarations and suppressed sale deeds and transactions, mischaracterised the nature of property acquisitions and falsified registration values of properties in Form 26.
Ashok Kumar also alleged that Vijay had not disclosed the purchase of three acres of land at Banruti village under the Walajabad sub-registrar office on January 6, 2026, for a sale consideration of Rs 30 crore. He argued that this amounted to non-compliance with Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
He also pointed out that a property mentioned in Vijay’s election affidavit was actually Poromboke land at Villipatti village in Kodaikanal.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the principles governing undue influence through non-disclosure of assets were different from those concerning non-disclosure of criminal antecedents.
"The voter knows my client (Vijay) is from a wealthy family and he is very very wealthy. If he is wealthy up to Rs. 630 crore, the question is whether the voter can equate the additional value or up and down of market value of the properties with criminalisation of politics," the counsel asked.