Madras High Court Seeks IT Dept Report On Assets Declaration By Udayanidhi Stalin For 2026 TN Elections

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the authorities to file a status report and adjourned the case to Monday (April 20). It may be noted that the assembly elections in the State is to be conducted on April 23rd.

The petitioner R Kumaravel from Chennai argued that the voter had a fundamental right to be informed about the true and complete particulars of a candidate contesting in the elections. He pointed out that even as per pronouncements of the Supreme Court, a voter's fundamental right to know the antecedents of a candidate was a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and such information is essential for the meaningful exercise of the franchise.

The petitioner submitted that the election affidavits filed by Udayanidhi Stalin, for the years 2021 and 2026, when read together, disclosed a consistent pattern of irregularities, including the disappearance of previously declared assets, contradiction regarding corporate records, unexplained changes in financial exposure, and mischaracterisation of transactions.

The petitioner submitted that from a voter's point of view, these discrepancies render the disclosure untrustworthy ad undermine the very object of the transparency regime prescribed by law, warranting an independent investigation by the specialised agencies to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.

The petitioner had thus sought for a direction to the Election Commission of India and the returning Officer to verify the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions and statutory filings made by Udayanidhi. An interim direction was also sought to direct the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the discrepancies, suppression, and misstatements in the financial disclosures made.

When the matter was taken up on Wednesday, Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the affidavits filed by Udayanidhi in 2021 & 2026 and the records maintained by the statutory authorities gave a different picture. He argued that the voter had a right to know about the candidate and called for true disclosure by the candidate before the Election Commission of India.

"I'm not against anyone. The affidavit filed in 2021 and 2026 and the records maintained by the statutory authorities are different. A voter needs to know about the candidate. He needs to know what kind of person is contesting. If anything, a wrong picturisation is given. Let disclosure of true fact be made before the Election Commission," Raghavachari argued.

When the court asked how the voter's right was affected, he argued that if it proved that the candidate had not made true disclosure, the candidate's rights are affected and the sanctity of the declaration itself is affected.

Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal, standing counsel for the Election Commission, submitted that the Representation of the People's Act already contained a provision which provided for penal action if it was found that a candidate had made false disclosure (Section 125A). He submitted that the returning officer, after would display the information provided by the candidate, which the voter could look into. He pointed out that the returning officer could not go into the truthfulness of the statements made by the candidate as the same would require a trial and the introduction of evidence.

To this, Raghavachari submitted that it was not plausible to file an election petition after the elections, since a huge sum of money was spent on the elections. He submitted that the genuineness of the election should be ascertained before the conduct of the elections itself.

After hearing the parties, the bench directed the authorities to file a status report by April 20 and adjourned the case.

Case Title: R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others

Case No: WP 14645 of 2026