Tamil Nadu CM Vijay’s assets row: ‘ ₹30 crore not disclosed, will it matter to voters?’ — All about case in Madras HC

g to tThe Madras High Court heard a case on Wednesday, in which allegations were levelled that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay did not disclose assets worth ₹30 crore in his election nomination papers.

During the hearing, the judge reportedly asked: "Can missing out 30 crore worth of assets amount to a corrupt practice?"; "Do you think it would make a difference to a voter in Perambur if Vijay had failed to disclose 30 crore worth of assets?"

Justice V Lakshminarayanan heard an application filed by the Chief Minister, seeking to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency in the April 2026 Assembly polls, Live Law reported.

Here's all you need to know about Tamil Nadu CM Vijay’s ₹30 crore assets row

According to Live Law, a voter, S Dinesh, approached the Madras High Court to challenge Vijay's victory from the Perambur constituency. Dinesh reportedly alleged several discrepancies in Vijay's financial disclosures in his election affidavit.

One allegation concerned 50 cents of land at Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal.

According to the News Minute, Vijay’s affidavit stated that he purchased the agricultural land for ₹30,000 in 1997 and that its present market value was around ₹20 lakh. The petitioner claimed revenue records show that the land is government poromboke land.

The petitioner also alleged discrepancies in the details of a non-agricultural property in Porur. Vijay’s affidavit stated that he purchased 33,955 square feet for ₹9.13 crore in 2010, while registration records allegedly show that the purchase involved 20,773 square feet for ₹7.5 crore, the report claimed.

Another allegation pertained to a commercial property in Padi. According to the petition, as reported by the News Minute, Vijay’s affidavit described an 11,854-square-foot building valued at ₹7 crore, purchased for ₹1.95 crore in 2009, with ₹3.9 crore spent on construction. The petitioner reportedly claimed the property, with a constructed area of 23,460 square feet, was actually sold for ₹35 crore on February 12, 2026.

The petitioner further alleged that Vijay had not purchased the Padi property as stated in the affidavit but had received it through an exchange deed involving a property in Korattur. The petition claimed that this mode of acquisition and the subsequent ₹35-crore sale were not disclosed.

In the case of Vijay’s bungalow at Neelangarai, the petitioner disputed the description of the property as inherited. According to the petition, Vijay’s father S A Chandrasekhar purchased the property in 2003 and settled it in favour of his son in 2005.

The settlement deed valued the property, spread over 17,100 square feet with a 5,500-square-foot building, at ₹2.75 crore. The petitioner has alleged that Vijay’s 2026 affidavit instead stated that ₹18.73 crore had been spent on an 18,633-square-foot built-up area and placed the current market value at around ₹20 crore, the report added.

The counsel reportedly cited the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in Resurgence India versus Election Commission of India, which held that a voter’s right to know about a candidate is an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

What did Vijay's counsel say?

CM Vijay, represented by senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, sought to reject the election petition and argued that the material particulars had not been disclosed in the election petition.

It was submitted that whether the petitioner had satisfied Section 81 of the Representation of People Act itself was a question, since there was no pleading to establish that he was a voter in the constituency.

Vijay's application also argued that minor discrepancies in the election affidavit were not a ground to set aside the election. It claimed there were no material particulars to show how they affected the result of the election, according to Live Law.

What did Madras HC say?

While hearing the case on Wednesday (October 7), the Madras High Court questioned whether non-disclosure of assets worth ₹30 crore by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay in his election nomination papers would amount to "corrupt practice."

Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that Vijay would have had a lot of properties in his name, according to Live Law.

The judge observed that it was not likely that Vijay himself had prepared the list of his assets and said that the same might have been done by a Chartered Accountant (CA).

The judge then wondered if the failure on the part of the CA to declare some assets would be a ground to challenge the election itself.

“While becoming a judge, you're supposed to declare your assets. Do you think I sat and prepared the list? I relied on my chartered accountant. Similarly, do you think Vijay sat and wrote down all his assets? He would've definitely relied on a CA. The CA might've missed some assets. For that, can the election be set aside?” the court questioned, as per Live Law.

The judge also asked the petitioner’s counsel how the alleged non-disclosure of assets worth around ₹30 crore could have influenced voters when Vijay had declared assets worth more than ₹600 crore.

The court further asked the election petitioner if non-disclosure of assets worth ₹30 crore would have made any difference to the voter, who had already decided to vote for Vijay.

“He had declared 600 crore in assets. Can missing out on 30 crore worth of assets amount to a corrupt practice?” the court remarked.

“If I decided to vote for Vijay, it wouldn't matter to me if he owns what property. Do you think it would make a difference to a voter in Perambur if Vijay had failed to disclose 30 crore worth of assets?” the court asked.

According to the New Minute, Justice Lakshminarayanan also questioned the allegation that the returning officer improperly accepted Vijay’s nomination. He asked how a returning officer could be expected to verify the correctness of the assets declared in the affidavit.