MP Stalin suppressed details of DMK Charitable Trust in his election manifesto, plea in Madras High Court claims

DMK President MK Stalin. FILE | Photo credit: E. Lakshmi Narayanan

A writ petition has been filed in the Madras High Court to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to investigate a complaint against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, who allegedly suppressed certain details in his election declaration, and subsequently initiate criminal proceedings against him under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if the allegations are proved.

First Division Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Monday (July 27, 2026) heard a writ petition filed by 73-year-old advocate T. Sivagnanasambandan, who fought against Mr. Stalin in Kolathur constituency as a Legislative Assembly candidate in the Makal Des2 constituency and contested the Makal Des2 election. Sakthi Katchi (DMSK).

The Petitioner submitted that Section 33A of the 1951 Act, as amended by Section 4A of the Election Rules, 1961, requires every candidate standing for election to Parliament and the Legislative Assembly to file an affidavit along with Form 26 stating all his movable and immovable property, liabilities, equity interests, trusts and other property interests, particularly financial interests

The filing of the affidavit was not an empty formality but a legal requirement aimed at ensuring the transparency and integrity of the electoral process so that voters could make an informed choice after learning about the financial situation of the contestants, the petitioner said. He accused Mr. Stalin of not releasing details related to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Charitable Trust.

The petitioner alleged that Mr. Stalin became the Managing Trustee of the DMK Charitable Trust after the death of his father M. Karunanidhi in 2018. Thereafter, the trust acquired an immovable property located at Kadambadi village in Chengalpattu district for a valuable consideration of ₹2.27 crore and the transaction was registered with the office of Registrar Subram Tirukazhuk2009.

However, this particular material was not disclosed in the affidavit in Form 26 filed before the Returning Officer, the petitioner claimed and claimed that he had made a representation in this regard to the ECI and also to the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) on 12th May, 2026. The representation insisted on conducting an immediate inquiry and initiating proceedings under Section 151 of the Act.

The petitioner alleged that the ECI and the CEO did not act on his behalf and asked that they be directed to consider and deal with his claim “by conducting an investigation into the allegations of suppression, non-disclosure of trusteeship, beneficial interest… and then, if the allegations are found to be substantiated, take appropriate action in accordance with law”.

Published – 26 Jul 2026 12:46 IST