The Madras High Court has raised serious concerns over a discrepancy exceeding ₹100 crore in the election affidavits submitted by actor-turned-politician Vijay. The court has issued notices to him, along with the Income Tax Department and the Election Commission of India (ECI). The matter came up during a hearing on Monday, where the court identified the mismatch as an irregularity in the documents filed for two different constituencies.

The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. While ordering the notices, the bench remarked, “This is an irregularity; more than Rs 100 crores has not been disclosed in one constituency.” The court was hearing a petition filed by Vignesh, a resident of Chennai. Based on the petition, notices have been issued to Vijay, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), the ECI, and the Returning Officers of Perambur and Trichy (East) constituencies. The court further stated that there appeared to be some irregularity on Vijay’s part and has scheduled the next hearing for the coming week.

This case has gained attention as Vijay is making his electoral debut in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. He is contesting from two constituencies, Perambur in Chennai and Trichy (East). His political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), which he launched in 2024, is also contesting elections for the first time across all 234 constituencies in the state. With campaigning set to conclude on Tuesday and polling scheduled for April 23, the timing of the case is significant.

The issue surfaced after discrepancies in Vijay’s nomination papers came to light. To avoid disqualification during the scrutiny process, he initially submitted a revised set of documents for the Perambur constituency. Despite the concerns, his nominations for both constituencies were eventually accepted by the authorities.

The petitioner argued that the affidavits filed by Vijay contain multiple and serious inconsistencies. According to him, these discrepancies require a detailed investigation by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation). He also urged the court to ensure that the case is resolved quickly, ideally before the polling date, so that voters can make an informed decision.

As per the petition, Vijay declared assets worth ₹115,13,63,000 before the Returning Officer in Perambur. However, in his affidavit submitted for Trichy (East), he disclosed assets amounting to ₹220,15,62,010. The petitioner pointed out that such a large difference suggests the disappearance of high-value assets. This, he argued, could indicate suppression of information and raises concerns about beneficial ownership, possible routing of funds, and concealment.

The petition further stated that these discrepancies cannot be dismissed as simple clerical errors. It argued that a reasonable conclusion would be that either one of the affidavits is incorrect or the corporate filings do not reflect accurate information. In either case, the matter requires a thorough investigation to determine the truth.

The case involving Vijay is not an isolated one. Similar petitions have also been filed in the High Court concerning discrepancies in the nomination papers of other candidates. These include Aadhav Arjuna, the general secretary of TVK, contesting from Villivakkam, and Dr Tamilisai Soundarrajan, a BJP leader contesting from Mylapore. Both constituencies are located in Chennai, and the petitions raise similar concerns about inconsistencies in the affidavits submitted by these candidates.

The High Court’s intervention highlights the importance of transparency and accuracy in election-related disclosures. With elections just days away, the developments in this case could influence public perception and voter confidence. The court’s next hearing is expected to bring further clarity on the matter.