The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in assets declared by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay in his election affidavit.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting that the bench had previously dismissed a batch of pleas seeking similar relief.

It may be noted that in April 2026, the bench had issued notice on the plea after noting that the alleged discrepancy of Rs 100 crore in the two affidavits filed by Vijay was an irregularity.

The petition was filed by V Vignesh from Chennai. In his plea, Vignesh submitted that there are inconsistencies in the affidavits filed by Vijay before the returning officer in Trichy (East) constituency and one filed before the returning officer in Perambur constituency. He submitted that the materials disclose multiple layers of inconsistencies, which raise serious concerns and make out a prima facie case warranting investigation by the Director General of Income Tax.

The petitioner submitted that while Vijay had disclosed assets of Rs 115,13,63,000/- before the Returning Officer for Perambur constituency, he disclosed assets of Rs. 220,15,62,010/- before the Returning Officer of Trichy constituency. The petitioner further submitted that this transition is neither explained nor supported by any documents.

The petitioner alleged that the disappearance of a high-value asset constitutes a classic case of suppression of assets and raises serious questions regarding beneficial ownership, routing of funds, and concealment of material particulars. The petitioner has also stated that this contradiction in the affidavits cannot be due to clerical error or approximation, and the only inference that can be drawn is that either of the affidavits is false or the corporate filings are incorrect, which warrants investigation either way.

The petitioner has thus sought for a probe into the assets published by Vijay and submit a report before the Returning Officers of both constituencies. The petitioner has also sought such report to be published to the general public on or before the date of polls in the State (23rd April), thereby allowing the general public to make an informed choice.

Case Title: V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 260

Case No: WP 15673 of 2026