Madras HC seeks IT Dept response to plea alleging discrepancies in BJP leader Tamilisai Soundararajan's poll affidavit

The Madras High Court on Monday issued notice on a plea alleging discrepancies in an election affidavit filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Tamilisai Soundararajan, a candidate in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, 2026 [Goutam Siva Vs Election Commission of India].

The plea has been filed by a voter who has raised concerns about alleged discrepancies noticed with respect to Soundararajan's disclosed income.

A Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadikari and Arul Murugan sought responses from the Election Commission of India, the Income Tax Department and Soundararajan.

The case is expected to be heard next in two weeks.

The petitioner’s counsel today alleged that there were discrepancies in the income disclosed in the election affidavit filed by the BJP leader for the present election, and disclosures made in a prior Form 26 affidavit filed during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

He contended that they indicated inconsistencies in the Soundararajan's declared income tax returns. It was submitted that the variations are apparent on the face of the record and warrant a scrutiny.

“Why is the amount differing?” the Court briefly questioned during the hearing today, referring to the alleged inconsistency in financial disclosures.

Soundararajan's counsel replied that the variation could be due to fluctuations in income. He pointed out that both Soundararajan and her husband (assets of spouses also have to be disclosed during elections) were medical professionals and that their earnings may vary year to year.

He opposed the petition, terming it a frivolous challenge. He pointed out that the scrutiny of nominations had already been completed without any objection.

He also argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as any challenge to a candidate contesting an election must be brought by way of an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Court, however, noted that the petitioner at present is only seeking certain information, particularly from the Income Tax Department. The Court observed that only the tax authorities would be in a position to verify the financial disclosures flagged by the petitioner.

It accordingly issued notice and granted four weeks’ time for responses from the authorities concerned.