Introduction:
In T. Sivagnanasambandan v. The Chief Election Commissioner (W.P. No. 28881 of 2026) [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348], the Madras High Court declined to issue directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to conduct an inquiry into allegations that a candidate had failed to disclose certain assets in the affidavit filed along with nomination papers for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that, in the absence of prima facie material demonstrating suppression of assets or a personal interest in the property concerned, no direction for an inquiry could be issued.
The petition was filed by T. Sivagnanasambandan, a political advisor to the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK) and a candidate who had contested the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election from the Kolathur constituency. He alleged that the respondent had failed to disclose property worth ₹2.27 crore allegedly held in the capacity of Permanent Trustee and Managing Trustee of the DMK Charitable Trust in the statutory Form 26 affidavit submitted under the election laws.
According to the petitioner, such non-disclosure defeated the purpose of election affidavits, which are intended to promote transparency and enable voters to make informed electoral choices. After representations made to the Election Commission allegedly failed to evoke any response, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions for an inquiry into the alleged suppression and for consequential action under the Representation of the People Act and the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that every contesting candidate is under a legal obligation to disclose all material financial interests, including movable and immovable assets, liabilities, beneficial interests and trusteeships in Form 26. It was argued that the respondent had deliberately omitted details of property allegedly associated with the DMK Charitable Trust despite acting as its Permanent Trustee and Managing Trustee.
The petitioner maintained that such omission undermined electoral transparency and deprived voters of their constitutional right to know the complete financial background of candidates contesting elections. It was further argued that repeated representations submitted to the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, together with supporting documents, had not been acted upon. This alleged inaction, according to the petitioner, violated the provisions of the Representation of the People Act as well as Articles 14 and 324 of the Constitution. The petitioner therefore sought judicial directions compelling the Election Commission to inquire into the allegations and take action in accordance with law.
On behalf of the respondent, Senior Advocate P. Wilson submitted that the election law does not require a candidate to disclose every property belonging to a trust merely because the candidate serves as a trustee. It was argued that trust property cannot automatically be treated as the personal asset of a trustee unless there exists a legally recognisable personal or beneficial interest. Consequently, the allegation of suppression was without legal foundation.
The Election Commission of India also opposed the relief sought by the petitioner. It submitted that if an allegation of false disclosure in an election affidavit discloses an offence, the appropriate remedy is to initiate proceedings before the competent Magistrate. The Commission argued that even if an administrative inquiry were conducted, any prosecution would ultimately have to be pursued before the Magistrate in accordance with law. Therefore, issuance of the writ sought by the petitioner was neither necessary nor appropriate.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the pleadings and documents placed on record, the Madras High Court expressed its inability to direct the Election Commission to initiate an inquiry. The Bench observed that the petitioner had failed to produce prima facie material demonstrating that the respondent possessed any personal ownership or beneficial interest in the trust property which legally required disclosure in the election affidavit.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s allegations themselves proceeded on the basis that the respondent held the property only in the capacity of a trustee. Merely functioning as a trustee does not automatically establish personal ownership over trust assets. In the absence of documents indicating that the respondent had a personal financial interest in the property, the Court found no basis to conclude that there had been any suppression of material particulars.
The Bench orally observed that before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioner was required to place sufficient material demonstrating that relevant information had in fact been omitted from the affidavit in violation of law. Without such prima facie evidence, the Court could not compel the Election Commission to conduct an inquiry merely on the basis of allegations.
The Court also took note of the Election Commission’s submission that the statutory framework provides an appropriate legal remedy before the competent Magistrate if there are allegations regarding false declarations in election affidavits. This reinforced the view that a writ directing an inquiry was not warranted in the facts of the case.
During the hearing, the Bench indicated that the petitioner had not discharged the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. Faced with the Court’s observations, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the competent authority after collecting and producing relevant materials.
Accepting the request, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies available under law before the appropriate authority. The Court deliberately refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, leaving it open to the petitioner to initiate proceedings supported by adequate evidence.
The judgment reiterates an important principle governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction: constitutional courts will not issue directions for investigation or inquiry solely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. A litigant seeking judicial intervention must first establish a prima facie factual foundation demonstrating that statutory obligations have been violated. Where such material is absent and alternative remedies are available, the High Court will ordinarily decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.