'No Material': Madras High Court Refuses To Direct Inquiry Into Non-Disclosure Of Assets By DMK Chief MK Stalin In 2026 Election Affidavit
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 29), permitted the withdrawal of the plea seeking an inquiry into alleged non-disclosure of assets by former Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party President MK Stalin, in his election affidavit filed during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348]
The petitioner requested the court to allow withdrawal of the plea after the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination in issuing directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct an enquiry based on the representation made by the petitioner. The bench had orally remarked that the petitioner had not produced any materials to prima facie show that the assets were not declared as per law.
"There's no material along with the petition to show that he (Stalin) has a personal interest in the property. You have to place materials before us to show that relevant documents were not filed. Otherwise, you'll have to withdraw and approach the ECI with materials...We can't issue directions. Some material must be there prima facie. We're not convinced because we do not see any material," the bench orally remarked.
The bench thus dismissed the plea as withdrawn and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
The petition was filed by T. Sivagnanasambandan, political advisor to the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK), who had also contested the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election from the Kolathur constituency, from where Stalin contested. The seat was ultimately won by V.S. Babu of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
According to the petitioner, Stalin failed to disclose property valued at ₹2.27 crore allegedly held by him in his capacity as Permanent Trustee and Managing Trustee of the DMK Charitable Trust in the Form 26 affidavit submitted along with his nomination papers.
The plea contended that the statutory affidavit is intended to ensure transparency and integrity in the electoral process by requiring every contesting candidate to disclose all movable and immovable assets, liabilities, beneficial interests, trusteeships, financial interests and other material particulars, thereby enabling voters to make an informed choice.
It is further alleged that the omission of these details undermines free and fair elections and deprives the electorate of its constitutional right to know the complete antecedents of a candidate.
The petitioner also submitted that despite representations made to the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, along with supporting material alleging suppression of material particulars, no inquiry was initiated and no orders were passed. Alleging that such inaction is arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and Articles 14 and 324 of the Constitution, the petitioner had sought directions to the authorities to consider his representations, conduct an inquiry into the alleged suppression and non-disclosure, and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
When the matter was taken up for hearing previously, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for Stalin, submitted that a candidate is not required to disclose details of all trust properties in Form 26. Agreeing that the relevant documents must first be placed on record, the Court had directed the petitioner to file complete documents along with accurate translations.
Following this, when the matter was taken up for hearing on Wednesday, the Election Commission of India argued that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the concerned Magistrate by way of a complaint. The ECI submitted that even if there was a direction to conduct an enquiry and ultimately there were materials, the ECI itself would have to file a complaint before the Magistrate.
The bench, after perusing the materials, noted that as per the petitioner's allegations, Stalin was holding property only in trust. The bench noted that there was nothing to show that Stalin had a personal interest in the property, necessitating its disclosure. Since the court was not convinced that there was prima facie material, the petitioner sought to withdraw the plea, which was allowed by the bench.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr ML Ravi
Counsel for Respondent: Mr Niranjan Rajagopal, Standing Council for ECI
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
Case No: WP 28881 of 2026