Madras High Court Raises Concerns Over Vijay's Election Affidavit Discrepancies
The Madras High Court has taken serious note of alleged irregularities in the election affidavits filed by prominent actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) founder Vijay. On Monday, the court observed that approximately Rs 100 crore appears to have been undisclosed in the affidavits, directing Vijay, the Income Tax Department, and the Election Commission of India to submit their responses.
Court Directs Responses Within One Week
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, admitted the petition and adjourned the hearing by one week. This adjournment provides the authorities and Vijay with time to file their detailed responses to the allegations of financial discrepancies.
Substantial Asset Declaration Differences Noted
According to the petition filed by V Vignesh, a voter from the Perambur constituency, Vijay declared assets valued at Rs 115.13 crore in his affidavit for the Perambur constituency. In stark contrast, he declared assets worth Rs 220.15 crore in his affidavit for the Trichy (East) constituency. This significant variance of over Rs 100 crore has raised serious questions about the accuracy and completeness of the disclosures.
Petitioner Seeks Transparency Before Polling Date
Vignesh has urged the court to direct the relevant authorities to publish a comprehensive report to the public on or before April 23, which is the polling date for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The petitioner argues that a comparative analysis of the affidavits reveals multiple layers of inconsistencies that warrant immediate investigation.
The petition states: "A comparative and sequential scrutiny of the affidavits filed by Vijay in Trichy (East) and Chennai-Perambur constituencies discloses multiple layers of inconsistencies which, each in itself, raise grave concerns and, taken together, clearly make out a prima facie case warranting investigation by the Income Tax Department."
Allegations of Deliberate Financial Suppression
The petitioner further contends that the disclosures made by Vijay in his statutory affidavits under Form 26, as mandated by Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, are not only incomplete but prima facie false. These affidavits are alleged to be inconsistent with statutory records and indicative of a deliberate and systematic suppression of material financial information.
This legal development occurs in what the petitioner describes as exceptional circumstances, highlighting the critical importance of transparency and accountability in the electoral process, especially for high-profile candidates like Vijay.
