CM Vijay declared Rs 600 crore assets; can missing Rs 30 crore amount to corrupt practice, asks MHC

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court questioned whether Chief Minister Joseph Vijay’s alleged failure to disclose assets worth Rs.30 crore would have made any difference to a voter who had already decided to vote for him.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan raised the question while hearing a petition filed by Chief Minister Vijay seeking dismissal of an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency.

The judge also questioned whether Vijay’s failure to disclose Rs.30 crore worth of assets in his election nomination papers could amount to a corrupt practice when he had already declared assets worth around Rs.600 crore.

In the May 2026 Assembly election from Perambur, Vijay secured 1,20,365 votes, while R. D. Shekar secured 66,650 votes. Vijay won by a margin of 53,715 votes. Voter S. Dinesh filed an election petition challenging Vijay’s election from the Perambur constituency.

Subsequently, Vijay filed a petition seeking dismissal of the election petition filed against him.

During the hearing, counsel for petitioner Dinesh submitted that candidates must not furnish false information or suppress material facts in their nomination papers. However, details of a property worth around Rs.30 crore in Panruti were allegedly suppressed in Vijay’s nomination papers. Documents, including the survey number and sale deed, were also placed before the court.

It was further submitted that the petition contained specific allegations supported by evidence and not vague claims. The petitioner’s counsel also pointed out that Vijay had declared the purchase of 50 cents of land at Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal, whereas Revenue Department records showed it as government poramboke land.

The judge orally remarked that Vijay, being a popular actor, would have had several properties and questioned whether he himself would have prepared the list of assets. The judge noted that Vijay would have likely relied on a Chartered Accountant and questioned whether the election could be set aside if the CA had missed some assets.

The court further questioned whether non-disclosure of Rs.30 crore worth of assets could amount to corrupt practice when Vijay had already declared assets worth around Rs.600 crore.

The court also asked whether such non-disclosure would have made any difference to a voter who had already decided to vote for Vijay, particularly whether a Perambur voter would have changed their decision over the failure to disclose Rs.30 crore worth of properties.