No material to prove Thaman was paid ₹10 crore for composing TVK song, Vijay told Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. | Photo credit: B. JOTHI RAMALINGAM

DMK candidate RD Shekar, who lost in the Perambur Assembly constituency and filed an election petition, failed to submit materials to prove that music composer S Thaman was paid ₹10 lakh for composing the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam election song “Thani oruvan vedichu varaan, visillu onnu adichu varaan,” Joseph Chira Madija High V Chira Madija High court said.

In an affidavit submitted in support of his application to dismiss the election petition, Mr Vijay pointed out that the election petitioner had only claimed that he had “reasonably learned” that Ghantasala composer Sai Srinivas, professionally known as Thaman, “would charge ₹10 crore”. The claim to make such payment was therefore “purely notional”.

“The election petition does not allege that ₹10 crore was actually paid, spent or sanctioned. The petition does not seek any contract, invoice, confirmation, offer, actual payment, date of payment, payee, payee, reimbursement or other transaction to show that the expenditure of ₹10 crore was actually incurred,” the affidavit said.

Similarly, Mr. Vijay said the election petition does not rely on any material with precision to prove other alleged expenses incurred by him beyond the statutory ceiling of ₹40 crore during the campaign. “It only aggregates estimated and projected amounts, some of which themselves lack basic facts about origination, payment and authorization,” he said.

Foreign contributor

He also claimed that the election petition does not claim the identity of any foreign contributor or the amount of the alleged foreign contribution received for the election campaign. “Without prejudice, the mere existence of a social media account operated by a person resident outside India does not constitute a material fact of receipt of foreign funds,” he added.

The court was also told that the election petitioner failed to show how the loans offered by the Chief Minister to his children and whether the money was reflected in their tax returns or not, materially affected the outcome of the election in which the petitioner lost by a margin of 53,715 votes, with Mr. Vijay securing 1,20,365 votes against 66.60 votes secured by the petition.65

He also stated that his mere physical presence at places of worship during the election campaign cannot be termed a corrupt act. “Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires full particulars of the corrupt practice. However, the election petition does not state the words constituting the religious appeal, the precise communication, the audience or the electorate to whom it was addressed,” he said.

Published – 29 Aug 2026 23:45 IST