The entire fabric of CM Vijay’s election case has changed, says a Madras High Court judge

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay. File. | Photo credit: PTI

The hearing of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s plea to dismiss the election petition filed against his victory from the Perambur constituency took an interesting turn on Wednesday (October 7, 2026), with Justice V. Lakshminarayanan of the Madras High Court noting that the entire fabric of the case had changed in view of Supreme Court judgments on election judgments cited by counsel.

After hearing arguments on behalf of the chief minister on Monday and Tuesday, the judge on Wednesday (October 7, 2026) began firing a barrage of questions at the election petitioner’s counsel, asking how some of the alleged irregularities in assets worth more than ₹600 million claimed by Mr Vijay could amount to improper voter influence or election practices.

The judge wanted to know whether voters in Perambur constituency would be swayed one way or the other simply because there was a difference of a few crores or a few crores in the assets declared by the Chief Minister, especially considering the fact that he was a “superstar” in the film industry and had voluntarily declared properties as both movable and immovable.₹60

The judge said he relied on a chartered accountant to declare his assets while he was elevated to the position of a High Court judge. Thus, if Mr. Vijay had also declared his assets through a chartered accountant, how could his election be declared void for any errors committed by the auditor in such declaration, the judge reasoned.

He also challenged voter S. Dinesh’s call through his counsel VR Shanmuganathan to elect the Chief Minister from Perambur on the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination form by the concerned Returning Officer. The judge wanted to know how the Returning Officer could be expected to verify the correctness of the assets declared.

In reply to the questions, the counsel for the election petitioner submitted that the returning officer is only expected to conduct a summary inquiry while the allegation of false statement and whether such statement was made willfully and intentionally can only be investigated through evidence during the trial of the election petition. Therefore, the election petition should not be rejected at the border, he argued.

He said that Justice V. Ramasubramanian (during his tenure at the Madras High Court before his retirement as a Supreme Court judge) had held in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2009) that “any incorrect information, incorrect information, incomplete information, false information, disinformation, misinformation and failure to inform the elector would certainly interfere with his right to vote. The candidate will be greatly prejudiced by the information so provided or not provided.” affected.”

“The view taken by Justice Ramasubramanian was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015. Therefore, I have filed a cause of action to hear the election petition and it should not be dismissed in limine,” the counsel said. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India (2013) in which it was held that the right of a voter to know about a candidate is an inherent right arising from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a). a) of the constitution.

After hearing him at length, Justice Lakshminarayanan turned to senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan and said, “Mr. Gopal, the structure of the case has completely changed. Please see the judgments that he has circulated. See Justice Ramasubramanian’s judgment.”

When Mr. Sankaranarayanan said, “There is a square answer to that,” the judge asked him to respond in his reply on Thursday (October 8, 2026).

Published – 7 Oct 2026 22:48 IST