Chennai, Oct 7:
The Madras High Court on Wednesday raised a key question on whether the election victory of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay from the Perambur Assembly constituency could be declared invalid over discrepancies in the declaration of his assets in the election affidavit. The court questioned whether an alleged mistake committed by an auditor could by itself be a ground to invalidate an elected candidate’s victory.
The election petition was filed by Perambur voter S. Dinesh, challenging Vijay’s election victory. The petitioner has alleged that Vijay failed to disclose assets worth about Rs 30 crore and furnished incorrect or contradictory details regarding certain immovable properties in his election affidavit. Based on these allegations, the petitioner has sought a declaration that Vijay’s election from Perambur is void.
According to the arguments advanced before the court, Vijay had declared assets worth about Rs 600 crore in his election affidavit but allegedly failed to disclose a property in Panruti valued at around Rs 30 crore. The petitioner has also raised questions over the details of land in Vilpatti village near Kodaikanal and a bungalow at Neelankarai in Chennai.
With regard to the Vilpatti property, the petitioner’s counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan submitted that Vijay had stated in his affidavit that the agricultural land was purchased in 1997 for Rs 30,000 and had given its present market value as around Rs 20 lakh. However, according to the petitioner, an examination of the village ‘A’ register showed that the land was classified as government poramboke land.
The petitioner’s side also questioned Vijay’s description of a bungalow at Neelankarai as ancestral property. It was submitted that Vijay’s father, S.A. Chandrasekhar, had purchased the property from Sumathi Raghunath Gaitonde in 2003 and subsequently settled it in favour of his son Vijay in 2005 on the basis of love and affection, without any monetary transaction. The petitioner argued that the description of the property as ancestral property in the election affidavit was therefore incorrect.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s side argued that the discrepancies in the affidavit amounted to suppression of material information and that the election victory should consequently be declared void. The issue before the court included whether such discrepancies were serious enough to warrant invalidating the election result.
Vijay’s side opposed the election petition and sought its dismissal. Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the alleged discrepancies were only minor errors and did not amount to deliberate non-disclosure. He submitted that all the relevant assets and income details had been disclosed and that the nomination papers had been properly accepted.
Vijay’s counsel also contended that even if there were mistakes in the affidavit, the petitioner had not established that such errors had materially affected the election result. The defence maintained that a minor defect in an election affidavit could not automatically be treated as a ground for declaring an election invalid.
The court, while hearing the matter, specifically questioned whether an auditor’s mistake could be attributed to Vijay and whether such a mistake alone could justify declaring his election victory invalid. The judge also raised the broader issue of whether the alleged non-disclosure or under-reporting of assets had any bearing on the election result.
The court had earlier received several election petitions challenging Vijay’s victories in the 2026 Assembly election. Apart from the Perambur case, a separate election petition was filed challenging his victory in Tiruchirappalli East by DMK candidate Inigo Irudayaraj. Three petitions were filed in connection with the Perambur constituency, including those by DMK candidate R.D. Shekar and voters.
R.D. Shekar had challenged Vijay’s victory in Perambur, where Vijay defeated him by 53,715 votes. The petition alleged suppression of facts and discrepancies in the election affidavits. The High Court had earlier ordered fresh notices to Vijay, the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer after the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the earlier notices had not been served.
The election cases are being heard by Justice V. Lakshminarayanan. In the present proceedings, Vijay’s side has sought dismissal of the petition challenging his Perambur victory. The High Court has adjourned the matter to October 8 for further hearing.
The present proceedings concern a challenge to Vijay’s declared election result; the High Court has not, at this stage, declared his victory invalid. The court’s questions during the hearing relate to whether the alleged discrepancies in the election affidavit meet the legal threshold for setting aside an election.