Madras HC issues notice to CM Vijay, Minister Aadhav Arjuna on petitions challenging their election wins

The Madras High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay and Minister Aadhav Arjuna in elections petitions challenging their 2026 Assembly election victories.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan issued notice on the petitions challenging Vijay’s victories from Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East. It also issued notice on the petitions challenging Arjuna’s victory from Villivakkam.

At the same time, the Court granted time to cure defects in some of the petitions, including defects relating to affidavits and Form 25.

Form 25 is the prescribed affidavit format that must be filed with an election petition when the petitioner alleges corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

During the hearing, the Court orally questioned why such procedural requirements had not been complied with.

“Why can’t you sign the affidavit? You are from an experienced political party,” the judge asked.

The notices will be issued by the registry after the defects are cured.

The Court said it did not want the petitions to be returned by the registry and granted one week to comply with the defects.

The Court also permitted private notice to be served, in addition to the usual mode of service, noting that election petitions are required to be tried expeditiously under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The petitions concern three Assembly constituencies - Perambur, Tiruchirappalli East and Villivakkam.

Four petitions have been filed against Vijay. Three of them challenge his election from the Perambur Assembly constituency, while one challenges his victory from Tiruchirappalli East.

In Perambur, the petitions have been filed by S Dinesh, RD Shekar and TN Lakshmi Narasimhan. Shekar was the DMK candidate from the constituency.

Vijay had won Perambur by 53,715 votes. As per Election Commission data, he secured 1,20,365 votes, while Shekar polled 66,650 votes. The petitions filed by Dinesh and Lakshmi Narasimhan have been listed subject to maintainability.

Vijay’s election from Tiruchirappalli East has been challenged by S Inigo Irudayaraj. Vijay had defeated Irudayaraj by 27,416 votes. The Election Commission data shows that Vijay polled 91,381 votes, while Irudayaraj secured 63,965 votes

The petitions allege that Vijay and TVK functionaries “systemically and consciously” involved minors in campaign activities. The pleas refer to Vijay’s April 21, 2026 speech, in which he allegedly appealed to children to ask their parents, grandparents and other voting-age family members to vote for TVK’s “Whistle” symbol.

According to the petitions, Vijay addressed children as his “little friends” and asked them to insist that family members vote for the Whistle symbol, in the same way they would insist on chocolates, Kinder Joy or clothes.

The petitions contend that this violated the Election Commission of India’s February 5, 2024 direction prohibiting political parties from using children in election campaigns, rallies, slogan shouting, distribution of posters and pamphlets or display of party insignia.

The pleas also claim that Vijay “emotionally targeted” and “blackmailed vulnerable children and impressionable minds” to garner votes from their family members.

Both petitions have also alleged suppression of election expenditure.

Two election petitions have also been filed against Aadhav Arjuna from the Villivakkam Assembly constituency. One has been filed by R Sivaraj and the other by Karthik Mohan.

Arjuna had won Villivakkam by 17,302 votes. He secured 66,445 votes, while DMK candidate Karthik Mohan polled 49,143 votes.

The petitions are significant because they challenge the election of Vijay, who led TVK to power in Tamil Nadu, and Aadhav Arjuna, one of the party’s prominent faces during the campaign.

Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the election of a returned candidate can be challenged only through an election petition before the High Court. The elected candidate continues in office unless the election is set aside by the Court.