CHENNAI: The Madras High Court directs the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs to file a response on a writ plea seeking a probe into asset disclosures made by Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavit.
R Kumaravel (56), a resident of Chepauk-Triplicane Assembly constituency, had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court, stating that a comparative analysis of the election affidavits filed by Udhayanidhi Stalin during 2021 and 2026 reveals the disappearance of previously declared assets, unexplained variation in loans, mischaracterisation of financial transactions, and contradictions between affidavit disclosures and corporate filings.
It noted that in 2021, Udhayanidhi had declared Rs 7.36 crore investment in Red Giant Movies, but the same was completely absent in the 2026 affidavit. Instead, the latest affidavit claims that his spouse had invested Rs 2.63 crore in the company. "This transition is neither explained nor supported by any disclosure of transfer, sale, divestment, or restructuring," the petitioner complained.
Further, the loan amount of Rs 11.06 crore advanced to Snow Housing Private Limited in 2021 has been reduced to Rs 10 crore in the latest affidavit without any explanation.
Udhayanidhi had a relatively modest income aggregating to approximately Rs 2.02 crore over a period of five years before 2020, but subsequent years reflect a sharp increase, aggregating to over Rs 10.98 crore, he said.
Asserting that false or incomplete disclosure of assets by the candidates contesting in elections not only violates the statutory provisions under the Representation of the People Act of 1951 but also directly impairs the fundamental right of voters to be fully informed, he sought a direction to the DGIT (Investigation) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to inquire into the issue.
The petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. The Election Commission submitted that appropriate action would be taken if any false affidavit is established. It further contended that, as the election process has already commenced, the petitioner should file an election petition.
After the hearing, the Bench directed the DGIT (Inv.) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs to file their responses. The matter has been adjourned to April 20.