Madras HC to Hear Plea Seeking ECI Probe Against M.K. Stalin Over Affidavit Details

The Madras High Court will hear a writ petition on Monday, July 27, 2026, seeking an Election Commission of India inquiry and potential criminal proceedings against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin for allegedly suppressing details regarding the DMK Charitable Trust in his election affidavit for the Kolathur constituency.

A First Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan will hear the plea filed by 73-year-old advocate T. Sivagnanasambandan. Sivagnanasambandan had contested against Stalin in Kolathur during the 2026 Legislative Assembly elections as a candidate sponsored by the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK).

In his petition, Sivagnanasambandan submitted that Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, mandates that candidates disclose all movable and immovable assets, liabilities, beneficial interests, trusteeships, and financial interests in Form-26 affidavits. He stated that filing the affidavit is a statutory requirement aimed at ensuring electoral transparency so voters can make informed choices.

The petitioner accused Stalin of failing to disclose details related to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Charitable Trust. According to the petition, Stalin became the managing trustee of the trust following the death of his father, M. Karunanidhi, in 2018. The trust subsequently purchased an immovable property at Kadambadi village in Chengalpattu district for ₹2.27 crore, registered at the Tirukazhukundram Sub Registrar's office in 2019.

Sivagnanasambandan alleged that this transaction and Stalin's role as managing trustee were omitted from the Form-26 affidavit submitted to the Returning Officer. The petitioner noted that he had submitted a representation detailing these allegations to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) on May 12, 2026, demanding an immediate probe and action under Section 125A of the 1951 Act.

Claiming that electoral authorities failed to act on his representation, the petitioner moved the court seeking directions to the ECI and CEO to conduct an inquiry into the non-disclosure allegations and initiate lawful action if the claims are substantiated.