Madras High Court Refuses Probe Into TVK Candidate Aadhav Arjuna's Financial Disclosures In Election Affidavit, Says ECI Has Power

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a probe by the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer (District Election Officer) to verify the financial disclosures made by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate Aadhav Arjuna in his election affidavit filed for the 2026 TN Assembly Elections. The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the petition filed by M Karunanidhi, a resident of Chennai, seeking a probe. Another petition had been filed to debar Arjuna, but the same has not been numbered yet. While dismissing the plea, the court noted that it could not pass such directions to the Election Commission of India once the election process had begun. The court noted that it was within the domain of ECI to probe into the financial disclosures. In his plea, Karunanidhi had stated that though Arjuna projected himself as a proponent of clean and transparent politics, his election affidavit for the 2026 elections revealed substantial financial dealings and prima facie indicated non-disclosure of material particulars, including the business interest of his spouse, raising serious concerns regarding compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements under the election law. The petitioner stated that Arjuna has failed to disclose income and financial interests linked to multiple corporate entities associated with his spouse, Daisy Aadhav. The petitioner stated that such non-disclosures raised grave concern of suppression and incomplete disclosure. The petitioner pointed out that a candidate was under a statutory obligation to furnish full, true, and accurate particulars of assets, liabilities, and financial interests, including those of their spouse. He thus argued that the omissions by Arjuna would attract violations under Section 125A (penalty for furnishing false information), Section 123(2) (undue influence through concealment of material facts), and Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) (improper acceptance of nominations) under the Representation of People Act. Since such non-disclosure affects the fundamental right of the elector to made an informed electoral choice and vitiates the very foundation of a free and fair electoral process, the petitioner had sought urgent intervention of the court directing a time-bound preliminary inquiry into the discrepancies. Case Title: M Karunanidhi v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation)and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 174 Case No: WP No.15752 of 2026

Madras High Court Refuses Probe Into TVK Candidate Aadhav Arjuna's Financial Disclosures In Election Affidavit, Says ECI Has Power

Upasana Sajeev

Tags