The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking an income tax investigation 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 submitted during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election.
Court's Ruling
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, concurred with the submission of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The bench ruled that such allegations can only be addressed through an election petition, not through a writ petition. Consequently, the plea filed by Sakthivel Perumal was dismissed.
Petitioner's Allegations
Sakthivel Perumal, a voter from the Edappadi constituency, contended that Palaniswami failed to disclose complete details of his assets and income in his nomination papers. The petitioner argued that a comparison of affidavits filed by Palaniswami in 2021 and 2026 revealed several discrepancies, indicating suppression of material information.
The petitioner sought a probe by the Income Tax Department to investigate the alleged discrepancies. However, the court declined to entertain the plea, emphasizing the legal remedy available through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act.
Legal Precedent
The High Court's decision aligns with established legal principles that disputes relating to election affidavits and candidate disclosures fall within the jurisdiction of election tribunals. The court observed that the Election Commission's role is to ensure compliance with election laws, but allegations of false affidavits must be adjudicated through specific legal channels.
This ruling underscores the importance of following due process in electoral matters. The court also noted that the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies before approaching the High Court directly.
Implications
The dismissal of the plea provides temporary relief to Palaniswami, who is a key political figure in Tamil Nadu. However, the matter could still be raised through an election petition if the petitioner chooses to pursue it further. Legal experts suggest that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish deliberate suppression of facts.
The case highlights the ongoing scrutiny of politicians' assets and the legal framework governing election affidavits. It also reinforces the judiciary's stance on not interfering in electoral matters unless procedural remedies are exhausted.
