Court Orders Probe on Udhayanidhi Assets

In a significant development ahead of the Assembly elections, the Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the Income Tax Department to conduct a preliminary probe into alleged discrepancies in the asset declarations of Udhayanidhi Stalin and submit a report within a tight deadline.

A First Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan instructed the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) to place a report before the court by April 20, stressing that the issue assumes urgency as voters head to the polls on April 23 and are entitled to accurate information regarding candidates’ financial disclosures.

The petition was filed by R. Kumaravel, a resident of the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency, where Udhayanidhi Stalin is seeking re-election.

Representing the petitioner, senior counsel V. Raghavachari argued that a comparative analysis of the affidavits submitted by Stalin during the 2021 Assembly elections and the current election cycle revealed multiple inconsistencies.

According to the petitioner, these discrepancies include the disappearance of previously declared assets, unexplained variations in liabilities, mischaracterisation of financial transactions, and inconsistencies between election affidavits and corporate filings.

The counsel argued that such issues raised serious concerns about transparency and accountability, particularly in the context of democratic elections.

Appearing for the Election Commission of India, advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan clarified that while candidates are mandated to provide full and truthful disclosures as per Supreme Court directives, Returning Officers do not have the authority to independently verify the accuracy of each declaration during the nomination process.

He also pointed out that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for penalties in cases of false declarations, including imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both.

However, such action typically follows due legal process after elections.

The petitioner, however, maintained that the objective was not to initiate criminal proceedings but to ensure that voters are informed of the correct financial details of candidates before polling.

The court has adjourned the matter to April 20, pending submission of the Income Tax Department’s report