Archive · 10 Oct 2026
Madras High Court Defers Vijay Election Plea Verdict
A voter named Dinesh is challenging C. Joseph Vijay’s election win in Perambur.
Vijay asked the Madras High Court to dismiss the case.
His lawyers said he gave all the required information in his nomination papers.
Dinesh’s lawyers said some land and other information may have been left out.
They argued that these claims should be examined in an election case.
Vijay’s side disputes that anything was hidden.
The judge asked questions about land records and election rules.
The court has not decided whether the challenge should continue.
It will give its decision on October 14.
The Madras High Court deferred its judgment on Vijay’s dismissal plea to October 14.
The election petition was filed by Dinesh, a voter in the Perambur Assembly constituency.
Vijay’s counsel said he disclosed all required information in his nomination papers.
Dinesh’s counsel alleged that agricultural land worth Rs 30 crore in Panruti was not disclosed.
The petitioner also raised questions about a Vilpatti land parcel and argued the allegations require examination in an election case.
- Who
- Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and petitioner Dinesh, a voter in Perambur.
- What
- The Madras High Court deferred its judgment on Vijay’s plea to dismiss an election petition challenging his victory.
- When
- The judgment was deferred on Thursday and is scheduled for October 14.
- Where
- Madras High Court; the election petition concerns the Perambur Assembly constituency.
- Why
- The petition alleges omissions in Vijay’s nomination disclosures, while Vijay’s side says all required particulars were disclosed.
Vijay’s position
Petitioner’s position
Whether the election case should proceed
Vijay’s position
Vijay’s counsel said he disclosed all required particulars in his nomination papers and asked the court to dismiss the election challenge.
Petitioner’s position
Dinesh’s counsel argued the allegations require detailed examination through an election petition, which should not be dismissed.
Alleged omissions in nomination papers
Vijay’s position
Vijay’s side maintained that no information was suppressed.
Petitioner’s position
Dinesh’s side alleged Vijay failed to disclose agricultural land valued at Rs 30 crore and raised questions about a Vilpatti land parcel and criminal-case disclosures.
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Judge
- Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
- Next decision date
- October 14
- Petitioner
- Dinesh, a voter in the Perambur Assembly constituency
- Constituency
- Perambur Assembly constituency
- Vijay’s victory margin
- 53,715 votes
- Alleged undisclosed agricultural land
- Land in Panruti valued at Rs 30 crore, according to the petitioner
- Other land discussed
- A 50-cent parcel in Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal; the petitioner cited revenue records classifying it as government surplus land