Entire texture of CM Vijay’s election case changed, says Madras High Court Judge

On October 7, 2026, the Madras High Court heard arguments in Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s plea to reject an election petition filed against his victory in the Perambur constituency. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan remarked that the entire texture of the case had changed due to the Supreme Court judgments cited by the election petitioner’s counsel.

The Judge questioned how alleged discrepancies in Vijay’s declared assets worth over ₹600 crore could influence voters or be considered corrupt electoral practices when considering his status as a "superstar" in the Indian film industry and his voluntary declaration of both movable and immovable properties. He also inquired about the election petition raised by voter S. Dinesh, questioning how a Returning Officer could verify the correctness of declared assets.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Returning Officer should conduct a summary inquiry, and the challenge of false declaration should be addressed through trial evidence. Counsel also referenced earlier Supreme Court judgments affirming a voter's right to know about a candidate, which flows from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

After hearing the arguments, Justice Lakshminarayanan directed Senior Counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan to respond on Thursday, October 8, 2026.