Madras High Court Seeks IT-Dept's Reply On Plea Alleging Discrepancies In BJP Leader Tamilisai Soundararajan's Election Affidavit

The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notice on a plea filed by Goutham Siva, a resident of Chennai. Notice has been issued to the Returning Officer (Mylapore Constituency), Returning Officer (District Election Officer), Chief Electoral Officer, the Election Commission of India, and the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation).

The petitioner 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 mismatch 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 on Monday, 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.

The court, after hearing the parties, noted that though nominations would have to be challenged by way of Election Petitions, in the present case, a response had been sought from the Income Tax Department also.

The court ordered notice and adjourned the case for 2 weeks.

Case Title: Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others

Case No: WP 15678 of 2026