Actor Vijay faces potential legal trouble as discrepancies emerge between two election affidavits concerning pending criminal cases and financial declarations, raising questions about compliance with election laws.
Key Points
- Actor Vijay's election affidavits for Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East constituencies show conflicting information.
- One affidavit claims no pending criminal cases, while the other declares two FIRs against Vijay.
- Financial declarations regarding election expenditure also differ between the two affidavits.
- Legal experts suggest discrepancies violate the Representation of the People Act, potentially leading to penalties.
- Rival candidates may raise objections based on the concealment of FIRs.
Discrepancies have surfaced in two separate election affidavits submitted by actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam founder Vijay, potentially inviting legal and political scrutiny ahead of the assembly elections.
The contrasting documents, prepared for the Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East constituencies, reveal contradictory declarations regarding his pending criminal cases and designated election bank accounts.
The affidavit prepared for the Perambur Assembly constituency, which was notarised in Chennai on March 30, explicitly claims that the political leader has no pending criminal cases against him. Conversely, a subsequent affidavit drafted for the Tiruchirappalli East constituency, notarised three days later in Tiruchirapalli, declares two pending first information reports (FIRs).
According to the Tiruchirapalli document, the disclosed cases include an FIR registered at the Koodakovil Police Station in Madurai district, and another at the Peravallur Police Station in Chennai.
The latter involves allegations of public nuisance and injuries caused by bouncers during a recent campaign event.
Financial Declaration Differences
In addition to the criminal record discrepancy, the financial declarations related to election expenditure also differ.
The Perambur document lists a single bank account opened for election expenses at the Indian Overseas Bank, Saligramam branch, containing a deposit of Rs 1 lakh.
The Trichy affidavit, however, lists two separate accounts, maintaining the Saligramam account for Perambur and adding another account at the Indian Overseas Bank Tiruchirappalli Main branch with a balance of Rs 90,000.
Legal Implications
Legal experts suggest that the suppression or misrepresentation of facts in a sworn election affidavit is a serious violation under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Under Section 125A of the Act, failing to furnish information, concealing details, or providing false information can attract a penalty of imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both.
In this case, rival candidates could raise immediate objections based on the concealment of the FIRs in the Perambur document, add experts.
There was no immediate response from TVK over the matter.
© 2026