Madras High Court quashes fresh plea against Vijay over discrepancies in election affidavit disclosures

Vijay

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition against actor-turned-politician Vijay on Monday. The petition was filed by a voter seeking a probe into the financial disclosures made by Vijay in his nomination affidavit filed for contesting in the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly elections.

Madras HC rejects new plea against Vijay

A Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan dismissed the plea filed by Chennai resident MP Venkatesh on Monday. Notably, the Court is already seized of another petition filed by a different person claiming discrepancies in two election affidavits filed by Vijay. In the earlier petition, the High Court had on April 20 issued notice to the Election Commission of India and the Income Tax Department after observing that more than Rs 100 crores were not disclosed by the TVK Chief in his affidavit filed in one of the two constituencies.

The plea is currently pending before the High Court and awaiting responses by the ECI and IT Department. The High Court declined to entertain the new plea and dismissed the petition.

For the unversed, Vijay is contesting the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections through his party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam. It marks his electoral debut after launching the party in 2024. He is contesting the election from two constituencies, Perambur in Chennai and Tiruchi East.

About the new petition

In the new petition, the voter alleged suppression and misrepresentation of material financial particulars in Vijay's Form 26 affidavit filed for contesting from the Perambur constituency. The plea also sought directions for a preliminary inquiry by authorities, including the Income Tax Department, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and the Election Commission of India.

The petition stated that Vijay's affidavit disclosed high-value financial transactions, such as loans running into several crores to family members and entities, while simultaneously declaring zero liabilities. The petitioner also argued that such disclosures were contradictory and misleading, undermining the statutory requirement of full and truthful disclosure under the election law.

The plea further highlighted a specific transaction, including a loan of over Rs 12 crore to his spouse as well as substantial transfers to a trust. The petitioner claimed that these lacked adequate explanation regarding their nature and source. It was argued that such incomplete or inaccurate disclosures violate Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and infringe a voter's fundamental right to make an informed choice under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution