CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigations) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, seeking their responses to a petition alleging discrepancies in the asset details declared in the nomination affidavit of Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, who is contesting from the Chepauk-Triplicane constituency in Chennai.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan directed Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan and standing counsel A P Srinivas, representing the respective departments, to file their replies by April 20, three days before polling. The matter was accordingly adjourned.
The petition was filed by R Kumaravel, a voter from the Chepauk-Triplicane Assembly constituency. He sought directions to the Director of Income Tax (Investigations), the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Returning Officer of the constituency to examine the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions and statutory filings of Udhayanidhi Stalin, including his dealings with Red Giant Movies Private Limited, Snow Housing Private Limited and Raj Promoters Private Limited. He also sought verification of the accuracy of disclosures made in the 2021 and 2026 election affidavits.
The petitioner pointed out that Udhayanidhi had declared an investment of Rs 7.36 crore in Red Giant Movies in his 2021 affidavit, whereas the 2026 affidavit shows no such investment, only stating that his spouse holds investments of Rs 2.63 crore in the company.
He also highlighted a reduction of Rs 1 crore in loans advanced by Udhayanidhi Stalin to Snow Housing Private Limited. According to the 2021 affidavit, the loan stood at Rs 11.06 crore, whereas the 2026 affidavit records it as Rs 10 crore.
The petition described the “disappearance and partial reappearance” of figures as a “classic case of suppression of assets”, raising questions over beneficial ownership, fund routing and alleged concealment of material particulars.
Senior counsel V Raghavachari, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that accurate information must be furnished to the Election Commission of India, enabling voters to make informed choices based on complete and correct facts. He argued that discrepancies in the 2021 and 2026 affidavits filed by Udhayanidhi warranted scrutiny.
Representing the ECI, advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan submitted that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act provides for penal consequences in cases of false affidavits. He further stated that affidavits and any objections raised are displayed at the office of the Returning Officer, who is not empowered to determine their correctness, as this would require a full trial or evidentiary examination. If any information is found to be false, Section 125A would apply, he added.
