Line on Tamil Nadu CM Vijay’s assets: “₹30 crore not disclosed, will it matter to voters?” — All about the case in Madras HC | Today’s news
The Madras High Court on Wednesday heard a case in which allegations were made that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay had not disclosed assets worth ₹30 crore in his election nomination papers.
During the hearing, the judge reportedly asked: “Can the omission of assets worth 30 million crowns amount to corruption?”; “Do you think it would have made a difference to the voters in Perambur if Vijay had not disclosed assets worth 30 crores?”
Justice V Lakshminarayanan was hearing an application filed by the chief minister seeking to dismiss an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory in the Perambur assembly constituency in the April 2026 assembly elections, Live Law reported.
Here is everything you need to know about Tamil Nadu CM Vijay’s ₹row 30 million assets
According to Live Law, voter S Dinesh approached the Madras High Court to challenge Vijay’s victory from the Perambur constituency. In his election affidavit, Dinesh has allegedly cited several discrepancies in Vijay’s financial information.
One charge related to 50 cents of land in Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal.
According to News Minute, Vijay’s affidavit stated that he had purchased the agricultural land ₹30,000 in 1997 and that its current market value was around ₹20 lakhs. The petitioner claimed that the revenue records show that this land is government poromboke land.
Read also | Why Tamil Nadu widow wants Vijay’s free bus scheme declared ‘unconstitutional’
The petitioner also alleged irregularities in the details of the non-agricultural property in Porur. Vijay’s affidavit said he purchased 33,955 sq.ft ₹9.13 crore in 2010, while registration records reportedly show that the purchase included 20,773 sq.ft. ₹7.5 million, the report claimed.
Another allegation related to a commercial property in Padi. According to the petition, as reported by News Minute, Vijay’s affidavit described the 11,854 sq ft building worth ₹7 million, bought for ₹1.95 million in 2009, p ₹3.9 million crowns were spent on construction. The petitioner allegedly claimed that the property with a built-up area of 23,460 sq. ft. was actually sold for ₹35 million on February 12, 2026.
The petitioner further contended that Vijay did not purchase the Padi property as stated in the affidavit but received it through a deed of exchange relating to the Korattur property. The petition alleged that this method of acquisition and subsequent ₹The sale for 35 million was not disclosed.
In the case of Vijay’s bungalow at Neelangarai, the appellant challenged the description of the property as inherited. According to the petition, Vijay’s father SA Chandrasekhar bought the property in 2003 and settled it in favor of his son in 2005.
Read also | Vijay’s TVK joins bloc INDIA: What it means for Tamil Nadu, DMK | Explained
The settlement deed valued the property at 17,100 square feet with a 5,500 square foot building at ₹2.75 million. The petitioner claimed to be quoting Vijay’s 2026 affidavit instead ₹18.73 million was spent on a built-up area of 18,633 sq.ft and the current market value is placed at approx. ₹20 crore, the report added.
The petitioner’s counsel, NC Ashok Kumar, reportedly cited the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in Resurgence India v Election Commission of India, which held that the right of a voter to know about a candidate is an integral part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). a) of the constitution.
He also questioned the role of the returning officer. He cited Justice V Ramasubramanian’s 2009 judgment in Krishnamoorthy versus Sivakumar, which held that incorrect, incomplete, false or withheld information could impair the free exercise of a voter’s right to vote. He said the verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015.
What did Vijay’s advisor say?
CM Vijay, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, denied the allegations and sought to dismiss the election petition, claiming that material details were not disclosed in the election petition.
His lawsuit alleges that the allegations are based on conjecture and do not contain material facts necessary to prove a cause of action.
“It was submitted that whether the petitioner had satisfied Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act itself was a question as it was not proved that he was a voter in the constituency,” Live Law said.
Read also | Tamil Nadu Gold Ring Scheme Launched Today: How Much Gold Will Newborns Get?
Vijay’s application also claimed that minor irregularities in the election declaration were not grounds for annulment of the election. It argued that there were no material details under Live Law to show how they affected the outcome of the election.
What did the Madras HC say?
Hearing the case on Wednesday (October 7), the Madras High Court asked whether non-disclosure of assets was worth ₹30 crore from Chief Minister Joseph Vijay in his election nomination papers would amount to a “corrupt practice”.
Justice Lakshminarayanan told Vijay’s lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan that the petitioner’s reliance on the judgments had changed the fabric of the case and asked him to respond on October 8.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally observed that Vijay would have a lot of properties in his name under the Live Law.
The judge observed that it was not likely that Vijay himself would have prepared the list of his assets and said the same could have been done by a chartered accountant (CA).
The judge then wondered if the fact that the CA did not recognize any property would be a reason to question the election itself.
“When you become a judge, you have to declare your assets. Do you think I sat and prepared a list? I relied on my chartered accountant. Likewise, do you think Vijay sat and listed all his assets? He would have definitely relied on the CA. The CA might have missed some assets. Can the elections be postponed because of this?” the court questioned how on Live Law.
Read also | Tamil Nadu: CM Vijay announces ₹ 30 lakh each for Asian Games heroes; check the names
The judge also asked the petitioner’s attorney how the alleged non-disclosure of the value of the property around ₹30 crore could have swayed voters when Vijay declared assets worth more than ₹600 million crowns.
The court further asked the election petitioner whether the non-disclosure of assets has value ₹30 crore would make a difference to a voter who had already decided to vote for Vijay.
“He admitted assets worth 600 million. Can the omission of assets worth 30 million amount to corrupt practices?” the court noted.
Read also | TN Assembly approves CM Vijay’s resolution mandating ‘Tamil Thaai Vazhthu’
“If I decided to vote for Vijay, I wouldn’t care what assets he owns. Do you think it would have made a difference to the voters in Perambur if Vijay had not disclosed assets worth 30 crores?” asked the court.
According to New Minute, Justice Lakshminarayanan also questioned the contention that the returning officer had wrongly accepted Vijay’s nomination. He asked how the returning officer could be expected to verify the correctness of the assets declared in the affidavit.
The hearing was adjourned to October 8.
