TAMIL NADU, (India): The Madras High Court on Monday (April 27) turned down a fresh request that sought an official investigation into the wealth and assets declared by actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Joseph Vijay for the upcoming 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections.
The case added another twist to the ongoing scrutiny around the political entry and financial declarations of the popular actor-turned-politician.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari along with Justice G Arul Murugan, dismissed the petition in court. However, the judges also made it clear that a detailed written order on the matter would be released later in the day.
This means the court’s full reasoning for rejecting the plea will be known once the order is officially uploaded.
At the same time, it is important to note that this is not the first time Vijay’s asset declaration has come under legal attention. A separate petition had already been filed earlier, asking for an income tax investigation into alleged irregularities in his financial disclosures.
In that earlier case, the High Court had issued notice and even sought a response from the Income Tax Department, keeping the matter open for review.
Allegations raised on loan and trust transfer details
The fresh petition was filed by MP Venkatesh, a resident of Chennai. In his complaint, he raised questions over certain figures mentioned in Vijay’s election affidavit. According to Venkatesh, Vijay declared a loan of Rs 12.6 crore given to his spouse and also showed a transfer of Rs 20 crore to a trust.
The petitioner argued that these transactions were listed without any proper explanation about their nature, source of money, or whether they were genuine.
He further claimed that when all the disclosures are read together, they show what he described as a pattern of unclear financial reporting.
According to him, this includes alleged misrepresentation, lack of clarity, and hiding of key details. He said this goes against legal requirement of full and honest disclosure under Form 26 which candidates must follow during elections.
Legal grounds and voter rights argument
Petitioner also argued that such incomplete or unclear financial statements are not just technical mistakes but amount to non-disclosure under law.
He said this may violate Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He further claimed that it could also attract punishment under Section 125A of the same law.
Most importantly, he argued that voters have a fundamental right to know complete and correct details about candidates. According to him, unclear financial declarations directly affect voter’s ability to make informed choice during elections. - The Statesman/ANN
