E-Paper
ADR report flags surge in wealthy, tainted candidates in Tamil Nadu polls
A report reveals 18% of 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly candidates face criminal charges, while 25% are wealthy, raising concerns over electoral reforms.
An analysis of self-sworn affidavits shows that 18% of candidates contesting the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly elections face criminal charges, while 25% of them possess assets worth crores, according to a report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Tamil Nadu Election Watch.
The report examined 3,992 of the 4,023 candidates, finding that 722 have declared criminal cases — a rise from 13% in 2021. It flagged the trend as a warning sign for electoral reform, stating that political parties continue to field candidates with criminal backgrounds.
The financial profile of candidates has also shifted sharply. Average assets have risen to ₹5.17 crore from ₹1.72 crore in 2021, with 981 candidates declaring assets above ₹1 crore. Among them, AIADMK’s Leemarose Martin tops the list with assets exceeding ₹5,863 crore, followed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s C. Joseph Vijay with over ₹648 crore.
The report underlined the growing influence of money power, noting that major parties overwhelmingly field wealthy candidates. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leads in this regard, with 97% of its candidates classified as “crorepatis”.
This comes despite a 2020 directive by the Supreme Court of India requiring parties to provide clear and merit-based reasons for selecting candidates with criminal records. The ADR observed that parties continue to cite generic justifications such as popularity or claims of politically motivated cases, which it said do not meet the court’s standard of “sound and cogent reasons”.
Party-wise, the AIADMK has the highest proportion of candidates with criminal cases among major parties at 69%, while Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam has 40%.
Overall, 22 candidates have declared assets exceeding ₹100 crore, and the total assets of all candidates amount to ₹20,678 crore. The report concludes that judicial directions have had little impact on candidate selection, with parties continuing to prioritise winnability over clean records.
