The Madras High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Central government and thje Income Tax authorities on a plea alleging discrepancies in the election affidavit filed by him [R Kumaravelu Vs Director General of Income Tax].
A Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs, to place a report on record by Monday, April 20.
The direction came on a petition filed by Chennai resident R Kumaravel, a voter from the Chepauk–Thiruvallikeni constituency, seeking a probe into alleged discrepancies in the assets declared by Udhayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavits for the 2021 Assembly elections and the upcoming 2026 polls.
Udhayanidhi Stalin, who is contesting again from the Chepauk–Thiruvallikeni constituency, has declared assets of approximately ₹20.6 crore in his election affidavit, including ₹12.9 crore in movable assets and ₹7.7 crore in immovable assets. His disclosed income for 2024–25 stands at ₹10.4 lakh, while his spouse has reported income exceeding ₹2.9 crore.
According to the plea, a comparative analysis of the affidavits filed in 2021 and 2026, read alongside records maintained by statutory authorities and corporate filings, revealed “material discrepancies” in disclosures.
The petitioner alleged disappearance of previously declared assets, unexplained variations in loans, contradictions between affidavit disclosures and corporate records, and mischaracterisation of financial transactions.
The petition also flagged suppression of statutory non-compliance and disproportionate financial activity vis-à-vis declared income. He contended that such inconsistencies render the disclosures unreliable and defeat the purpose of transparency mandated under election law.
Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the plea invoked the right of voters to make an informed choice under Article 19(1)(a) and argued that incomplete or inaccurate disclosures impair electoral transparency.
The petitioner sought a time-bound, independent investigation by specialised agencies, including the Income Tax Department and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the plea was not directed against any individual but sought verification of disclosures made in the affidavit filed along with the nomination.
He submitted that voters are entitled to know whether the information furnished by a candidate is accurate before casting their vote.
The Court, however, noted that once an affidavit is filed with nomination papers, it is made public to invite objections, and that the Returning Officer does not adjudicate on the correctness of disclosures as such issues would require evidence and trial.
It also observed that disputes relating to incorrect disclosures are ordinarily addressed through election petitions after the polls.
However, the petitioner maintained that post-election remedies are ineffective, arguing that voters are entitled to accurate disclosures at the time of voting itself.
The Court eventually sought the response of Stalin and IT authorities.
Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan appeared for IT department and Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan appeared for the Election Commission of India.