Madras High Court Flags ₹100 Crore Gap in Vijay’s Poll Papers

The Madras High Court has issued notices to actor-turned-politician Vijay, the Election Commission of India, and the Income Tax Department after a petition alleged striking inconsistencies in the star's election affidavits ahead of the Tamil Nadu Assembly polls.

On Monday, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. A. Dharmadikari and Justice Arul Murugan directed the respondents to file their replies within a week. The move came after petitioner V. Vignesh, a Chennai-based litigant, highlighted what he described as "glaring variations" in the assets declared by Vijay in two separate affidavits submitted for different constituencies.

The Bench, while refraining from making any definitive pronouncements at this stage, noted orally that the matter appeared to involve an "irregularity". The judges pointed out that more than ₹100 crore seemed to be missing from one of the declarations, a discrepancy too significant to be brushed aside as a clerical lapse. Formal and private notices have now been permitted, though the Court has stopped short of drawing conclusions until the respondents provide their explanations.

Vijay, who formally entered politics in 2024 with the launch of his party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, is contesting his maiden election from two constituencies-Perambur in Chennai and Tiruchi East. His candidacy has generated considerable public interest, given his stature as one of Tamil cinema's most bankable stars.

According to the petition, Vijay's Form 26 affidavits reveal stark differences in declared assets. In Tiruchi East, he listed movable assets worth ₹224 crore, while in Perambur the figure was just ₹105 crore. Similarly, his total assets were declared as ₹220.15 crore in Tiruchi East, but only ₹115.13 crore in Perambur. The petitioner argued that such a vast and unexplained gap raised serious questions about transparency and accuracy.

Vignesh contended that the issue went beyond a minor oversight, alleging that it amounted to suppression of material information. He suggested that the discrepancies could point to concealment of assets, questions of beneficial ownership, or even the routing of funds. In his view, the matter could not be dismissed as a simple error or approximation.

The plea further argued that only two possibilities existed: either one of the affidavits was inaccurate, or there were inconsistencies in related financial disclosures. Both scenarios, the petitioner maintained, warranted a thorough investigation.

Seeking judicial intervention, Vignesh urged the Court to order a probe into Vijay's asset declarations and ensure that a report is submitted to the Returning Officers of both constituencies. He also requested that the findings be made public before polling day on 23 April, so that voters could make an informed choice.

The Court has now posted the matter for further hearing after the respondents file their replies. For the moment, the spotlight remains firmly on Vijay, whose political debut is already proving as dramatic as his on-screen roles.