The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (June 17), dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in the assets declared by former Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and current Leader of Opposition Udayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavit for the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2026. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the High Court could not issue such directions while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court noted that non-disclosure of material information in the affidavit is a valid ground for setting aside the election by filing an election petition, and such relief cannot be sought by way of a writ petition.

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.

It may be noted that the bench had previously directed the Income Tax Department to submit a report in connection with the case. Following this, the department filed a preliminary report and had sought additional time for filing a detailed report explaining any alleged discrepancies in the financial statements

In its report, the department submitted that Udayanidhi had declared movable assets of Rs 21,13,09,650 and immovable assets of Rs 6,54,39,552 in the election affidavit for 2021 Assembly Elections. It has been submitted that for the 2026 Assembly elections, he has declared movable assets of Rs 12,92,07,483 and immovable assets of Rs 7,72,24,933.

The department informed the bench that Udayanidhi had not disclosed an investment of Rs 7,36,51,294 from his company, Red Giant Movies, in his 2026 election affidavit, which he had made in 2021. However, in the 2026 affidavit, he has declared an investment of Rs 2,63,58,142 in the company, in the name of his wife, Kiruthiga Udayanidhi.

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262

Case No: WP 14645 of 2026