Chennai : The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned whether failing to disclose assets worth around Rs 30 crore in Chief Minister Joseph Vijay’s election affidavit could be treated as a ‘corrupt practice’ when he had already declared assets worth nearly Rs 600 crore.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan raised the question while hearing Vijay’s application seeking the dismissal of an election petition challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency.
Court Questions Impact Of Undeclared Assets
During the hearing, the judge noted that Vijay, being a well-known actor, was likely to have several properties and financial interests. He also observed that it was unlikely that Vijay had personally prepared the detailed list of his assets and may have relied on a Chartered Accountant (CA) to complete the disclosure.
The judge questioned whether an error or omission by a CA could be sufficient reason to invalidate an election.
“While becoming a judge, you’re supposed to declare your assets. Do you think I sat and prepared the list? I relied on my chartered accountant. Similarly, do you think Vijay sat and wrote down all his assets? He would’ve definitely relied on a CA,” the court said.
The judge added that the CA could have inadvertently missed some assets and asked whether such an omission should be enough to set aside an election.
‘He Had Declared Rs 600 Crore In Assets’
“He had declared 600 crore in assets. Can missing out 30 crore worth of assets amount to corrupt practice?” the court further asked.
The court also examined whether the alleged non-disclosure could have influenced voters in Perambur. Justice Lakshminarayanan asked the election petitioner whether a voter who had already decided to support Vijay would have changed their decision because of the undisclosed properties.
“If I decided to vote for Vijay, it wouldn’t matter to me if he owns what property. Do you think it would make a difference to a voter in Perambur if Vijay had failed to disclose 30 crore worth of assets?” the judge asked.
Voter Challenges Vijay’s Perambur Victory
The election petition was filed by voter S Dinesh, who has challenged Vijay’s victory from Perambur. Dinesh has alleged discrepancies in the financial details provided by Vijay in his election affidavit.
Vijay, through Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, has sought dismissal of the petition. His counsel argued that the election petition did not contain the material particulars required under law.
Vijay’s Counsel Questions Validity Of Petition
Sankaranarayanan also questioned whether the petitioner had complied with Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, particularly since the petition did not contain a specific pleading establishing that he was a voter in the constituency.
The counsel further argued that minor discrepancies in an election affidavit could not, by themselves, be a reason to cancel an election. He maintained that the petition did not provide material particulars showing that the alleged discrepancies had affected the election result.
