Madras HC issues notice to TVK’s Vijay over asset disclosures

The polling for all 234 state legislative assembly constituencies across Tamil Nadu is scheduled for April 23

Published on: Apr 20, 2026, 19:38:04 IST

By Ayesha Arvind

Prefer HTon Google

Share via

Copy link

Madras High Court on Monday issued a notice to Tamil Vettri Kazhagham (TVK) leader and actor Vijay over a petition alleging discrepancies in the financial disclosures made by him in election affidavits filed for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Chennai resident, V Vignesh. (PTI)

A bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notices to the director general of income tax (Investigation), the election commission of India, and the returning officers for Perambur and Tiruchi (East) constituencies from where Vijay is contesting the upcoming polls.

The court also remarked orally that there seemed to exist a “significant irregularity” pertaining to around ₹100 crore in disclosure of assets made by Vijay in his affidavits.

Also Read: Chennai Police book Vijay, TVK leaders for unauthorised roadshow ahead of Tamil Nadu Assembly elections

“This is an irregularity. More than ₹100 crore have not been disclosed in one constituency,” the bench said. It directed Vijay and the other respondent parties to file their replies within a week’s time.

The polling for all 234 state legislative assembly constituencies across Tamil Nadu is scheduled for April 23.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Chennai resident, V Vignesh.

The plea alleged that stark differences exist in the assets declared in the two affidavits submitted by Vijay for the two constituencies that he is contesting the elections from.

According to the petition, Vijay declared assets worth ₹115.13 crore before the returning officer for Perambur constituency and ₹220.15 crore before Tiruchi East returning officer.

The petitioner claimed that over ₹100 crore difference remains unexplained and unsupported by documents.

On Monday, his counsel told the court that such a large gap cannot arise from clerical error or approximation.

Vignesh also alleged the discrepancy points to “suppression of assets” and raised questions about “beneficial ownership, routing of funds, and concealment of material particulars.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ayesha Arvind
Ayesha Arvind is a Senior Assistant Editor specialising in legal and judicial reportage. She covers High Courts and tribunals across southern India, and believes that important legal developments do not only come from New Delhi. Her work focuses on bringing significant decisions and developments from the region to a wider audience and explaining what they mean beyond the courtroom. She tries to make legal material accessible by translating legal jargon into clear, readable prose and putting pleas, lawsuits, judgments and legal developments in context. She also looks at their political realities and practical consequences for people. Ayesha is committed to the standards of integrity journalism requires. She places a premium on accuracy and fairness, and believes that journalism's powerful voice must be tempered by humility and a sense of proportion. Over almost two decades in journalism, she has covered law and order, civil law, crime and other areas of legal affairs. Her work includes breaking news, legal affairs stories, online analysis and commentary. Ayesha is deeply interested in the law, court judgments and the Constitution because they shape everyday life. She believes every citizen should have a basic understanding of them. What she enjoys most about covering courts is that every story brings something new to learn.Read More

Get the latest India News, breaking headlines and real-time updates from across the country. Stay informed about politics, government policies, crime, weather major national developments and Karnataka Bandh LIVE.