Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Probe Into BJP Leader Tamilisai Soundararajan's Asset Declaration

The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting the bench's previous orders in a similar plea.

It may be noted that in April 2026, the bench had issued notice to the respondent authorities. The bench, in similar pleas, had held that non-disclosure of material information in the affidavit is a valid ground for setting aside election by filing an election petition and such relief cannot be sought by way of a writ petition.

The petitioner, filed by Goutham Siva, alleged that there were discrepancies in the financial disclosure made by Soundararajan in 2024 and 2026. It was alleged that the assets declared by Soundararajan and her husband in 2024 were different from the assets declared by them in 2026. The petitioner had thus sought directions to the authorities to scrutinize the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings made by Soundararajan and take necessary action according to law.

The petitioner submitted that when reading the affidavits filed in 2024 and 2026 together, they disclose a consistent pattern of irregularities, distortion of declared assets, contradictions, unexplained changes in financial exposure, and mismatched transactions. The petitioner argued that these discrepancies render the disclosures untrustworthy and undermine the very objective of the transparency regime prescribed by law, thereby warranting an independent investigation by special agencies to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.

When the matter came up for hearing previously, Advocate GS Mani, representing Soundararajan, argued that any grievance relating to the nomination of a candidate can be challenged only by way of an Election Petition. He argued that the present petition, which was neither a Public Interest Litigation nor an Election Petition, was not maintainable and sought to dismiss the same.

When the court enquired about the difference in income declared for 2024 and 2026, Mani pointed out that both Soundararajan and her husband were medical professionals, and it was possible that their annual income may vary year by year.

Mani argued that there were no discrepancies in the assets declared by Soundarajan, which was evident from the fact that her nomination forms were accepted without any objections. Mani argued that the present plea, which was filed with the elections just around the corner, was nothing but a publicity interest litigation and sought to dismiss the plea.

Copy of detailed order is awaited.