The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that sought a probe by the Income Tax Department against former Chief Minister and AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami. The plea alleged that Palaniswami suppressed material facts regarding his wealth in the election affidavit filed during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election.
Court's Observation
Concurring with the submissions made by the Election Commission of India (ECI), the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ruled that such allegations can only be addressed through an election petition. The bench emphasized that the remedy lies in challenging the election itself, not through a separate probe at this stage.
Petitioner's Allegations
The petitioner, Sakthivel Perumal, a voter from the Edappadi constituency, alleged that Palaniswami failed to disclose complete details of his assets and income in his nomination papers. Perumal contended that a comparison of affidavits filed by Palaniswami in the 2021 and 2026 elections revealed several discrepancies. He argued that material information had been deliberately suppressed, warranting an investigation by the Income Tax Department.
- The petitioner claimed that the affidavits showed significant differences in asset declarations between 2021 and 2026.
- He asserted that the suppression of wealth details violated the Representation of the People Act and other legal provisions.
- Perumal sought a direction to the Income Tax Department to probe the alleged discrepancies and take appropriate action.
ECI's Stand
The Election Commission of India opposed the petition, submitting that any dispute regarding the correctness of an election affidavit can only be raised through an election petition after the election results are declared. The ECI argued that entertaining such pleas before the election would disrupt the electoral process and set a wrong precedent.
Court's Ruling
The bench agreed with the ECI's stance and dismissed the PIL, stating that the petitioner could approach the appropriate forum by filing an election petition if he had valid grounds. The court noted that the election process should not be impeded by such petitions at this juncture.
This ruling reinforces the legal principle that allegations of false affidavits in elections are best adjudicated through election petitions, which provide a comprehensive mechanism to examine all aspects of an election dispute.
