Justice V Lakshminarayanan put forward the question while hearing an application filed by the Chief Minister seeking to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency.

The judge orally remarked that Vijay, who was a popular actor, would have had a lot of properties in his name. The judge also remarked that it was not likely that Vijay himself had prepared the list of his assets and said that the same might have been done by a Chartered Accountant. The judge then wondered if the failure on the part of the CA to declare some assets would be a ground to challenge the election itself.

“While becoming a judge, you're supposed to declare your assets. Do you think I sat and prepared the list? I relied on my chartered accountant. Similarly, do you think Vijay sat and wrote down all his assets? He would've definitely relied on a CA. The CA might've missed some assets. For that, can the election be set aside?” the court questioned.

“He had declared 600 crore in assets. Can missing out 30 crore worth of assets amount to corrupt practice?” the court further asked.

The court also asked the election petitioner if non-disclosure of assets worth Rs 30 crore would have made any difference to the voter, who had already decided to vote for Vijay.

“If I decided to vote for Vijay, it wouldn't matter to me if he owns what property. Do you think it would make a difference to a voter in Perambur if Vijay had failed to disclose 30 crore worth of assets,” the court asked.

The voter, S Dinesh had approached the High Court challenging Vijay's victory from Perambur constituency, alleging that there were several discrepancies in the financial disclosures made by Vijay in his election affidavit.

Seeking to reject the election petition, Vijay, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that the material particulars had not been disclosed in the election petition. It was submitted that whether the petitioner had satisfied Section 81 of the Representation of People Act itself was a question, since there was no pleading to establish that he was a voter in the constituency.

Sankaranarayanan also argued that minor discrepancies in the election affidavit were not a ground to set aside the election, as there were no material particulars to show how the same affected the result of the election.

Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v S Dinesh

Case No: OA 909 of 2026 in ELP 50 of 2026