In a significant relief for actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president Vijay, the First Bench of Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a fresh petition seeking a probe into the assets declared by him in his nomination papers filed for the Perambur assembly constituency in the just concluded election.
In a significant relief for actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president Vijay, the First Bench of Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a fresh petition seeking a probe into the assets declared by him in his nomination papers filed for the Perambur assembly constituency in the just concluded election.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadikari and Justice G Arul Murugan declined to entertain the plea since notice had been already issued, returnable by June 3, in another case of similar nature. The Bench had earlier issued notice to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation). Two other petitions praying for an investigation into the assets declared by AIADMK heavyweights D Jayakumar (Royapuram Constituency) and C Ve Shanmugam (Mayilam in Villupuram district), were also dismissed on similar grounds.
Advertisement
The Bench said that a detailed order would be passed later in the day, giving reasons for the dismissal of the latest petition against Vijay.
Advertisement
The petitioner, MP Venkatesh (32), a resident of Kodungaiyur in Chennai and a voter in Perambur constituency, submitted that he is entitled to be aware of informed of the financial status of each candidate in the fray in his constituency and also each contestant has to make truthful disclosures. According to him, the disclosures made by the candidates in Form 26 is not an empty ritual but a substantive constitutional obligation. As such, suppression, concealment, manipulation or misstatement of material particulars would tantamount to be a fraud committed on the electoral process.
Further the petition questioned Vijay’s claim to be a proponent of clean politics when in his affidavit he had revealed high value loans extended to family members as well as closely connected entities. And, this demanded public scrutiny. “The disclosure of Rs 12.6 crore loan to his spouse, Sangeetha, has assumed greater significance in the light of widely reported developments, concerning matrimonial disputes, thereby raising legitimate questions about the genuineness, purpose and characterisation of such transactions.”
Advertisement
