Madras HC issues notice to TVK’s Vijay over disclosure of assets

Anand Kumar
By
Anand Kumar
Anand Kumar
Senior Journalist Editor
Anand Kumar is a Senior Journalist at Global India Broadcast News, covering national affairs, education, and digital media. He focuses on fact-based reporting and in-depth analysis...
- Senior Journalist Editor
3 Min Read
#image_title

The Madras High Court on Monday issued notice to Tamil Vetri Kazhagam (TVK) leader and actor Vijay on a petition alleging discrepancies in financial disclosures made by him in election affidavits filed for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Chennai resident, V Vignesh. (PTI)
The court was hearing a petition filed by a Chennai resident, V Vignesh. (PTI)

A bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notices to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Election Commission of India, and returning officers of Perambur and Tiruchi (East) constituencies where Vijay is contesting in the upcoming elections.

The court also orally noted that there appeared to be a “major irregularity” relating to the matter $100 crore in asset disclosure made by Vijay in his affidavits.

Read also:Chennai Police book Vijay and TVK leaders for unauthorized roadshow ahead of Tamil Nadu Assembly elections

“This is a violation. More than.” $“Rs 100 crore has not been disclosed in a single constituency,” the bench said and directed Vijay and other responding parties to submit their replies within a week.

Polling in all 234 state Legislative Assembly constituencies across Tamil Nadu is scheduled to take place on April 23.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Chennai resident, V Vignesh.

The petition alleged that there were glaring differences in the assets declared in the two affidavits filed by Vijay for the two constituencies where he is contesting the elections.

According to the petition, Vijay declared the value of the assets $115.13 Crores before the Returning Officer of Perambur constituency and $220.15 crore before the return of the Tiruchi East officer.

The petitioner claimed that it was over $The difference of Rs 100 crore remains unexplained and unsupported by documents.

On Monday, his lawyer told the court that such a large gap could not have arisen from a clerical error or rough estimate.

Fenech also claimed the discrepancy indicated “suppression of assets” and raised questions about “beneficial ownership, channeling of funds, and concealment of material details.”

Share This Article
Anand Kumar
Senior Journalist Editor
Follow:
Anand Kumar is a Senior Journalist at Global India Broadcast News, covering national affairs, education, and digital media. He focuses on fact-based reporting and in-depth analysis of current events.
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *