E-Paper
HC notice to I-T, Centre over plea alleging gaps in Udhayanidhi’s papers
The Madras High Court has issued notices to the Income Tax department regarding alleged discrepancies in Tamil Nadu Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin's election affidavit.
The Madras high court on Wednesday issued notices to the Income Tax department and the union government over a petition alleging irregularities in the assets declared and financial disclosures made by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin in his affidavit for the 2026 State Assembly elections.
A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs to file their replies to the plea by April 20 this year.
The Court issued the notices on a writ petition filed by R Kumaravel, a voter from the Chepauk–Triplicane Assembly constituency in Chennai.
Kumaravel’s counsel, senior advocate V Raghavachari told the Court that a comparison of the Deputy Chief Minister’s election affidavits from 2021 and 2026 revealed “serious discrepancies.” He alleged that several previously declared assets had “disappeared from the affidavit this year. Udhayanidhi’s affidavit filed this year also contained “unexplained variation in loans, and contradictions between affidavit disclosures and corporate filings,” the petitioner said.
According to the petition, Udhayanidhi Stalin declared an investment of ₹7.36 crore in the film production company, Red Giant Movies, in 2021. His 2026 affidavit however, does not reflect this investment.
Instead, the latest affidavit records an investment of ₹2.63 crore in the same company in the name of his spouse, the plea claims.
The petitioner also claimed that Udhayanidhi had not disclosed any transfer, sale, or restructuring to explain this change.
Kumaravel, in his petition, also questioned the sharp rise in Udhayanidhi’s income. He said that the deputy chief minister had a total income of about ₹2.02 crore in the five years prior to 2020, which rose to over ₹10.98 crore in subsequent years. The petitioner argued that this increase did not “correlate with declared assets.”
He argued that inaccurate disclosures violate the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and undermine voters’ right to information. Kumaravel sought a direction from the Court for a comprehensive inquiry and urged the court to Call for a preliminary report before the State goes to polls on April 23 this year.
