An election petitioner has approached the Madras High Court alleging that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay has claimed ownership over 50 cents of government poromboke land in Kodaikanal. The petition further claims that the Chief Minister made false declarations regarding multiple properties in his 2026 election affidavit, prompting a legal challenge seeking to invalidate his election victory.
The Chenab Times has learned that the election petition, filed by S. Dinesh, a voter from the Perambur constituency, seeks to declare Mr. Vijay’s election null and void due to what the petitioner terms “wilful and deliberate” suppression, misrepresentation, and false declarations concerning several immovable properties detailed in his statutory Form 26 affidavit for the 2026 Assembly polls. The allegations center on discrepancies in land ownership and property valuations, raising questions about the accuracy of disclosures made by the Chief Minister during the election process.
According to the details presented before the Madras High Court, an examination of the village ‘A’ register indicated that a parcel of agricultural land at Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal was classified as government poromboke land. The petitioner contends that this land, intended for public use, cannot be privately owned and that Mr. Vijay’s claim to it is in violation of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act. The petition further alleges that the property, though claimed to be inherited, was actually purchased by Mr. Vijay’s father, filmmaker S.A. Chandrasekhar, in 2003 and settled upon the Chief Minister in 2005 out of “love and affection” without any monetary consideration. The settlement deed reportedly covered 17,100 sq. ft of land and a 5,500 sq. ft building, with a property value pegged at ₹2.75 crore at the time. However, the petitioner points to Mr. Vijay’s 2026 affidavit, which states that he spent ₹18.73 crore to construct an 18,633 sq. ft built-up area on the land, valuing the property at approximately ₹20 crore currently. This significant disparity in declared value and construction expenditure has become a focal point of the legal challenge.
Further allegations by the petitioner include claims that a property in Kodaikanal, which Mr. Vijay declared as purchased in 1997 for ₹30,000 and valued at around ₹20 lakh, was, in fact, government poromboke land. The petition also highlights discrepancies related to a property declaration concerning Porur in Chennai, and another property in Padi, Chennai, which Mr. Vijay allegedly falsely declared as his own worth ₹7 crore, when it was reportedly sold for ₹35 crore. The petitioner insists that these alleged omissions and misrepresentations in the election affidavit constitute corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which warrants the nullification of the election results.
In response to the allegations, Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, through his counsel, has maintained that the petition is baseless and sought its dismissal. The Chief Minister’s legal team presented a sale deed before the Madras High Court, purportedly proving that he had purchased the 50 cents of land at Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal in 1997, as declared in his election affidavit. This sale deed was submitted to Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, who is presiding over the election petition. The legal arguments have also touched upon the materiality of the alleged discrepancies, with questions raised about whether such differences in asset declarations could have influenced voter choice.
The court has been examining the nuances of asset disclosure requirements under the Representation of the People Act. The petitioner’s counsel has argued that the alleged omissions and misrepresentations are substantial and amount to undue influence or corrupt practices. Conversely, Mr. Vijay’s defense has focused on presenting documentation, such as the 1997 sale deed, to substantiate his declarations and has contested the petitioner’s interpretation of land records and property values. The case also delves into the definition and scope of “government poromboke” land and the legal implications of claiming ownership over such parcels.
The proceedings before the Madras High Court have also seen the court considering the petitioner’s demand for the election of the Chief Minister to be declared null and void on the grounds of “wilful and deliberate” suppression and false declarations regarding his assets. The defense has argued that the disclosures were substantially complete and that minor differences, if any, do not affect voter choice. The case is being heard by Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, and after the conclusion of oral arguments, the judge directed the Registry to list the matter for the submission of written arguments, reserving orders thereafter. The ongoing legal scrutiny highlights the importance of accurate and comprehensive asset disclosure by candidates in elections.
This legal battle underscores the critical role of judicial oversight in ensuring the integrity of electoral processes and upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in public life. The outcome of the petition is anticipated to set a precedent regarding the interpretation of asset disclosure norms and the consequences of alleged misrepresentations by elected officials. The court’s final decision will hinge on the evidence presented and the legal interpretation of the Representation of the People Act concerning the alleged discrepancies in Mr. Vijay’s election affidavit.
The Chenab Times News Desk
