Sign in

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 7:38 PM IST
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • 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)
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.”

  • Ayesha Arvind
    ABOUT THE AUTHOR
    Ayesha Arvind

    Ayesha Arvind is a Senior Assistant Editor, specialising in legal and judicial reportage. She tracks high courts and tribunals, bringing key legal developments and their broader impact to the forefront.Read More

Check India news real-time updates, latest news, CBSE 12th Result 2026 LIVE from India on Hindustan Times and more across India.