N. Vigneshwaran v. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN N.Vigneshwaran S/o Natraj No.20, Amman Nagar, Telugu Palayam Coimbatore 641 026 Petitioner versus

1. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) Aayakar kaaryaalay, 21, M G Road Nugambakkam, Chennai- 600 034.

2. Ministry of Corporate Affairs Through its Regional Director Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 006.

3. The Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sadan Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110 001.

4. The Returning Officer District Election Officer and District Collector Collectorate, Coimbatore

5. S.P.Velumani Old Door No.11, New No.1C, 7th Ward, New Ward No.92, Sukunapuram East, Kuniyamuthur Post, Coimbatore 641 008 Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4, to verify into the

financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings of the 5th Respondent, made in his election affidavits filed before the 4th respondent.

For Petitioner :

No appearance For Respondents :

Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, for R-1 Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for R3 & R4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents 3 and 4 to verify into the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings of 5th respondent, made in his election affidavits filed before 4th respondent.

2. The prayer made in this petition is not maintainable in the light of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India which provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for or by or under any law made by the

appropriate legislature.

3. In Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, grounds for declaring election to be void have been set out, which can be raised only by way of election petition.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant1, has held in paragraph 38 as under: "38. When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the returning officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not suffice. Present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same time, it would not be possible for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification about the allegations made by the objector.

In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of nondisclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not contain complete information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted. Ms.

challenged. The grounds stated in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the nomination. Likewise, where the blanks are left in an affidavit, nomination can be rejected there and then. In other cases where detailed enquiry is needed, it would depend upon the outcome thereof, in an election petition, as to whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance. Once it is found that it was a case of improper acceptance, as there was misinformation or suppression of material information, one can state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a later date.

When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void. Otherwise, it would be an anomalous situation that even when criminal proceedings under Section 125A of the Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be countenanced."

5. The Apex Court, in the judgment supra, has held that when an information is given by a candidate in an affidavit along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the Returning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. The non-disclosure of material information in the affidavit is a valid ground

for setting aside election by filing an election petition and such relief cannot be sought by way of a writ petition.

6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.17243 of 2026 is closed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 24.04.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No tar To

1. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) Aayakar kaaryaalay, 21, M G Road Nugambakkam, Chennai- 600 034.

2. Ministry of Corporate Affairs Through its Regional Director Shastri Bhavan, 26 Haddows Road Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 006.

3. The Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sadan Ashoka Road, New Delhi- 110 001.

4. The Returning Officer

District Election Officer and District Collector Collectorate, Coimbatore

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN , J.

(tar) 24.04.2026