_Bench: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari & Justice G. Arul Murugan_ *1. What was the writ asking?* Petitioner N. Vigneshwaran sought a probe into _“alleged discrepancies in election affidavits”_ submitted by a candidate, asking
[15/05, 12:26] sekarreporter1: https://www.taxscan.in/top-stories/madras-hc-refuses-writ-seeking-probe-into-candidates-financial-disclosures-says-remedy-lies-in-election-petition-1446028
[15/05, 12:26] Meta AI: *Madras HC Refuses Writ Seeking Probe into Candidate’s Financial Disclosures – Remedy is Election Petition*
_WP No.15992 of 2026 | N. Vigneshwaran vs DGIT (Investigation)_
_Citation: 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 670 | April 24, 2026_
_Bench: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari & Justice G. Arul Murugan_
*1. What was the writ asking?*
Petitioner N. Vigneshwaran sought a probe into _“alleged discrepancies in election affidavits”_ submitted by a candidate, asking Income Tax dept to investigate assets disclosed.
*2. HC Ruling – April 24, 2026*
*Dismissed the writ.* Court held:
1. *Not for writ jurisdiction*: _“Allegations relating to false disclosures or suppression of material information often require detailed examination and evidence, which cannot practically be done by Returning Officers at the nomination stage.”_
2. *Proper remedy*: _“If it is eventually proven that a candidate lied about their assets or hid material information, the law allows for their election to be declared void. However, trying to bypass this process by filing a writ petition under Article 226 is not legally permissible once the election process has started or finished.”_
3. *Election petition route*: Liberty granted to pursue _“remedies available under law, including filing an election petition if permissible.”_ 94e2
*3. Legal Basis Cited*
*Supreme Court precedent*: SC has observed that Returning Officers can’t do detailed verification during scrutiny of nominations. False disclosure = ground to declare election void, but only through _“election petition”_ under Representation of the People Act, 1951, not writ.
*4. Related Context – Financial Disclosure Verification*
1. *IT Dept SOP*: CBDT has issued SOP for verification of assets declared by candidates. IT Dept told Madras HC on April 20, 2026 that _“verification of election affidavits happens after declaration of results”_.
2. *Udhayanidhi Stalin case*: IT Dept flagged _“apparent inconsistencies”_ – ₹7.36 cr investment in Red Giant Movies in 2021 affidavit missing in 2026; spouse’s ₹2.63 cr investment not in 2021. Also loan discrepancies: ₹10 cr in 2026 vs ₹11.06 cr in 2021, while company statements show ₹17.69 cr. IT Dept said ITR-2 doesn’t require balance sheet, so _“independent verification limited”_.
3. *TVK Vijay case*: HC rejected similar writ on April 29, 2026 challenging Vijay’s disclosures, saying it was already seized of another petition on _“substantially similar issues”_. 72531d4219f7
*5. Why HC Refused*
1. *Timing*: Once election process starts/ends, Article 226 can’t be used to short-circuit election petition mechanism.
2. *Evidence-heavy*: False affidavit claims need trial, cross-examination – not summary writ proceedings.
3. *Existing remedy*: RP Act, 1951 Sec 125A punishes false info; Sec 100 allows election to be declared void for _“improper acceptance of nomination”_ or _“corrupt practice”_. Proper forum = election petition to HC within 45 days.
*Bottom line*: Madras HC said if you think a candidate lied about wealth in nomination papers, file an election petition. Don’t file a writ asking IT Dept or court to investigate. Writ dismissed, but petitioner can file election petition if law permits.
Want the full order or details on how to file an election petition against false disclosures?
