TIRUCHY: Tamizhaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay has come under scrutiny after discrepancies surfaced in the election affidavits he filed for two Assembly constituencies. The issue gained traction on social media following his latest nomination from Tiruchy East on Thursday, prompting the party to announce that it will refile the Perambur nomination document with corrections on Saturday.
The discrepancies pertain to affidavits submitted for the Perambur and Tiruchy East Assembly constituencies, which contain conflicting declarations regarding age and pending criminal cases.
The Perambur affidavit, filed on March 30, lists Vijay's age as 52 years and states that there are no pending criminal cases against him. In contrast, the Tiruchy East affidavit, filed on April 2, records his age as 51 years and discloses two pending FIRs.
According to the Tiruchy East affidavit, one of the cases - FIR No 74/2026 registered at K5 Peravallur Police Station in Chennai - relates to alleged obstruction to the public during a roadshow held on March 30. The second case - FIR No 108/2025 at Koodakovil Police Station in Madurai - pertains to an incident during a TVK conference on August 21, 2025, in which a cadre alleged he was pushed off a ramp by bouncers while attempting to approach the leader in the party conference.
Responding to the discrepancies, TVK joint general secretary C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar said the Tiruchy East affidavit contains the correct and updated details, and that necessary corrections would be made in the Perambur filing.
"There was a confusion between running age and completed age while preparing the earlier affidavit. The correct age has been reflected in the Tiruchy East filing," he said.
He added that the revised affidavit would be submitted by a proposer on Saturday, and that Vijay is not expected to be present during the process.
Elaborating on the Madurai case, he said the incident occurred during a party event, but the complaint was filed a few days later as a Zero FIR at a police station in Perambalur district before being transferred to Koodakovil police station in Madurai for investigation.
He added that the party became aware of the case only after filing the Perambur affidavit, as no prior summons had been received, and reiterated that it was "politically motivated," a claim the party had already made. Contrary to his claim, the news of Vijay being booked in the Madurai case was widely reported in newspapers then. TNIE carried the news on August 28, 2025.
Legal experts pointed out that discrepancies in sworn election affidavits could attract provisions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under Section 125A, furnishing false information or concealing material facts may invite penalties, including imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both. They added that rival candidates could raise objections over the non-disclosure of FIRs in the earlier filing.
TVK sources maintained that the inconsistencies were procedural and would be rectified within the stipulated timeline, with the revised Perambur affidavit expected to align with the disclosures made in the Tiruchy East nomination.