Discrepancies have been found in the affidavits filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C. Joseph Vijay in his nominations for the Tiruchi East and Perambur Assembly constituencies with respect to personal details, criminal disclosures, and asset declarations.
In the personal details section, Mr. Vijay has declared his age as 52 in the Perambur affidavit, whereas it is stated as 51 in the Tiruchi East affidavit.
While the number of case registered against him is stated as “nil” in the Perambur affidavit, the Tiruchi East one mentions two cases. Of these, one was registered after he filed the nomination in Perambur. It was registered for an alleged violation of election norms during Mr. Vijay’s campaign in Chennai. The complaint, filed by the Kolathur Assembly constituency SST Team in-charge, stated that on March 30, Mr. Vijay and around 5,000 people conducted campaign activities causing inconvenience to the public. The case has been booked under Sections 126(2), 189(2), and 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 3(a) and 35 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act.
The second case, however, was registered for an earlier violation in Madurai district under Sections 189(2), 296(b), and 115(2) of the BNS. According to the complaint, during a TVK conference on August 21, 2025, when Mr. Vijay was walking on a ramp, the complainant climbed onto the stage. It is alleged that around 10 bouncers pushed him, used abusive language, and caused chest and internal injuries. In the affidavit, Mr. Vijay has stated that he had not received any summons or prior intimation from the police regarding this case and had come to know of it only recently, following which it has been disclosed.
Differences are also evident in the movable assets section. Under investments in companies, mutual funds, securities, debentures, shares, and related instruments, the value of shares held in Jaya Nagar Property Pvt. Ltd. is declared as ₹19,69,000 in the Perambur affidavit, whereas it is ₹19,03,000 in the Tiruchi East affidavit. Further, the Tiruchi East affidavit includes details of movable assets of his wife Sangeetha, son J. Jason Sanjay, and daughter J. Divya Shasha, whose names are not mentioned in the Perambur affidavit.
For Sangeetha, both affidavits declare 2 kg of silver; however, its value is shown as ₹25,000 in the Perambur affidavit and ₹4,75,000 in the Tiruchi East affidavit. The quantity and value of gold (3,132 grams valued at ₹4,07,16,000) and diamonds (134.91 carats valued at ₹1,00,00,000) remain the same in both affidavits.
In the Tiruchi East affidavit, the total value of movable assets is calculated as ₹96,866 for J. Jason Sanjay and ₹3,19,914 for J. Divya Shasha. These totals are not calculated or disclosed in the Perambur affidavit. In the immovable assets section, the estimated market value of Mr. Vijay’s properties is declared as ₹115,13,63,000 in the Perambur affidavit, whereas it is ₹220,15,62,010 in the Tiruchi East affidavit.
Under the section seeking details of assets and liabilities (including assets held abroad), the Tiruchi East affidavit includes the movable asset values of his children — ₹96,866 for Jason Sanjay and ₹3,19,914 for Divya Shasha — whereas no such entries are made in the Perambur affidavit.
Further discrepancies are noted in the declaration of immovable assets of his wife. The Tiruchi East affidavit lists the estimated market value as ₹2,50,00,000, while the Perambur affidavit declares it as ₹25,00,000.
Fresh nominations
Party office-bearers indicated another set of nominations could be filed in Perambur on behalf of Mr. Vijay rectifying these discrepancies.
Published – April 04, 2026 07:30 pm IST
