The Madras High Court has called for a status report from the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on a plea seeking a probe into the assets declared by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavit for the 2026 Assembly elections, as reported in LiveLaw.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the authorities to file a status report by 20 April 2026 and adjourned the matter. The Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu are scheduled to be held on April 23.
The plea was filed by R Kumaravel, a voter from Chennai, who argued that voters have a fundamental right to be informed about the true and complete particulars of candidates contesting elections. He relied on judgments of the Supreme Court of India to submit that a voter’s right to know the antecedents of a candidate flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and is essential for meaningful exercise of the franchise.
The petitioner submitted that a reading of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s election affidavits from 2021 and 2026 revealed what he described as a “consistent pattern of irregularities,” including disappearance of previously declared assets, contradictions with corporate records, unexplained changes in financial exposure, and mischaracterisation of transactions.
According to the plea, these discrepancies rendered the disclosures untrustworthy from a voter’s perspective and undermined the objective of the transparency regime prescribed by law. The petitioner argued that this warranted an independent investigation by specialised agencies to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.
Kumaravel sought directions to the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer to verify the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings made by Udhayanidhi Stalin. He also sought an interim direction to the Income Tax (Investigation) wing and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to conduct a preliminary inquiry into alleged discrepancies, suppression, and misstatements in the disclosures.
When the matter was taken up, senior advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for the petitioner, argued that there was a mismatch between the affidavits filed by Udhayanidhi Stalin in 2021 and 2026 and the records maintained by statutory authorities.
“I’m not against anyone. The affidavit filed in 2021 and 2026 and the records maintained by the statutory authorities are different. A voter needs to know about the candidate. He needs to know what kind of person is contesting. If anything, a wrong picturisation is given. Let disclosure of true fact be made before the Election Commission,” Raghavachari submitted.
When the court questioned how the voter’s right was affected, he argued that if it was established that a candidate had not made true disclosures, it would affect the candidate’s rights and the sanctity of the declaration itself.
Appearing for the Election Commission, advocate Niranjan Rajagopal submitted that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 already provides for penal action under Section 125A in cases of false disclosure. He argued that the Returning Officer is required to display the information furnished by candidates but cannot examine its truthfulness, as that would require a trial and evaluation of evidence.
In response, Raghavachari contended that filing an election petition after the polls was not a practical remedy given the significant expenditure involved in elections. He argued that the genuineness of the election process must be ensured prior to the conduct of polls.
After hearing the submissions, the bench directed the concerned authorities to submit their status report by April 20 and adjourned the case for further hearing.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
