Madras High Court permits withdrawal of a writ petition against DMK president and former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin.
The plea sought an Election Commission inquiry into alleged suppression of details about the DMK Charitable Trust in his 2026 Assembly election affidavit.
Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan was not convinced that Stalin had any personal interest in the trust properties.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 29, 2026) dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition that sought a direction to the Election Commission of India to inquire into alleged non-disclosure of assets by DMK president and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin in his election affidavit filed for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.
The petition, filed by advocate T. Sivagnanasambandan, alleged that Stalin had suppressed details regarding properties purchased by the DMK Charitable Trust, valued at around Rs 2.27 crore. The petitioner sought an inquiry by the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu into the purported discrepancies.
When the matter came up before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, the judges expressed disinclination to issue notice to the respondents solely on the basis of oral submissions. The bench indicated that there was no substantial material to show that Stalin had any personal interest in the trust properties. Following this, the petitioner chose to withdraw the plea.
The court accordingly permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The judges made it clear that the court could not proceed further or issue directions to the Election Commission without adequate material on record.
This development comes amid ongoing political and legal scrutiny surrounding election affidavits filed by candidates in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly polls. Similar petitions against other political leaders, including those related to alleged discrepancies in asset declarations, have also been examined by the High Court in recent months.
The dismissal as withdrawn closes the present legal challenge against Stalin on this specific issue. It remains open for the petitioner or others to approach the Election Commission directly with any concrete evidence, should they wish to pursue the matter through the appropriate statutory mechanism. The court’s order underscores the requirement of sufficient material before judicial intervention in election-related complaints involving asset disclosures.
