The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned whether the alleged omission of assets worth ₹30 crore from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay’s election affidavit could amount to a “corrupt practice” when he had already declared assets worth around ₹600 crore. Justice V Lakshminarayanan raised the question while hearing Vijay’s application seeking dismissal of an election petition challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency.

The court questioned whether an omission attributed to the chartered accountant who prepared Vijay’s asset statement could by itself justify setting aside an election. Justice Lakshminarayanan drew a comparison with judges declaring their own assets through statements prepared with professional assistance. “Do you think Vijay sat and wrote down all his assets? He would have definitely relied on a CA,” the court said, adding that an accountant could have missed some assets. The judge also questioned whether leaving out ₹30 crore from a declaration of about ₹600 crore could constitute corrupt practice.

The court also examined whether the alleged omissions could have had any meaningful impact on voters or the election result. Justice Lakshminarayanan pointed out that Vijay had won the Perambur seat by a margin of more than 50,000 votes. The judge questioned whether a voter who had already decided to support Vijay would have changed the decision because of an alleged failure to disclose assets worth ₹30 crore. The observation formed part of the court’s consideration of whether the alleged discrepancies were sufficient to sustain the election challenge.

Also Read: Vijay Responds To MK Stalin’s “Shooting” Remark Amid Political Exchange

The election petition was filed by S Dinesh, a voter from Perambur, who has alleged several discrepancies in Vijay’s 2026 election affidavit relating to immovable properties. The petitioner has described the alleged omissions and inconsistencies as “wilful and deliberate” suppression, misrepresentation and false declarations. Among the issues raised are 50 cents of land in Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal, which Vijay declared as a purchased property but which the petitioner claims forms part of government poromboke land. The petition also questions the disclosed extent and purchase price of a property in Porur.

Vijay has denied the allegations and has asked the High Court to reject the election petition at the threshold. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Vijay, argued that the petition lacked the material particulars required to sustain an election challenge and failed to establish how the alleged discrepancies affected the result. In his reply, Vijay described the allegations as “false, unfounded, baseless and completely misconceived” and said they were based on “conjectures and surmises”. He also argued that voters were aware they were choosing him as a well-known cinema actor offering a political alternative.

The court has not ruled that the alleged omissions amount to corrupt practice or that Vijay’s election should be set aside. The hearing remains focused on whether the allegations in the election petition disclose sufficient grounds to proceed with the challenge and whether the claimed discrepancies had a legally relevant impact on the election. The Madras High Court is scheduled to continue hearing arguments in the case on October 8.

Also Read: Vijay Announces ₹12,300 Crore UK Investments, Expected To Create 9,000 Jobs In Tamil Nadu