WP/16424/2026 of PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

W.P. No.16424 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P. No.16424 of 2026 and WMP No.17630 of 2026 Praveen Kumar S/o. Varadharaj 217, Chetty Garden Royapuram, Chennai-600 013 : Petitioner Vs 1.The Director general of Income Tax (Investigation) Aayakarkaaryaalay, 121 MG Road Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034 2.The Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 3.The Returning Officer 17, Royapuram Assembly Constituency Old Jail road, Mint Street, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 4.D. Jayakumar S/o. K. Durairaj No.10, Leith Castle South Street, Raja Annamalaipuram Santhome, Chennai-600 028 _________ Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.16424 of 2026 5.JFN Fishnet Manufacturer Pethikkuppam 62, Old By Pass Road Sway Reddy Kandigai Gumidipoondi, Tamil Nadu -601 201 : Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 viz. The Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer to verify into the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions and statutory filings of the 4th Respondent made in his election nominati on affidavit (Form 26) filed before the 3rd Respondent. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel for the first respondent Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, for respondents 2 and 3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to respondents 2 and 3 to verify into the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions and statutory filings of the fourth Respondent made in his election _________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.16424 of 2026 nomination affidavit (Form 26) filed before the 3rd Respondent. 2. The prayer made in this petition is not maintainable in the light of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India which provides that no election to either House of Parliament or to the Hous e or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in q uestion except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for or by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature. 3. In Section 100 of the Representation of the People Ac t, 1951, grounds for declaring election to be void have been set out, which can be raised only by way of election petition. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant1, has held in paragraph 38 as under: “38. When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper and 1 (2014) 14 SCC 162 _________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.16424 of 2026 objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the returning officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not suffice. Present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same time, it would not be possible for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification about the allegations made by the objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of non-disclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not contain complete information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the Election Commission, right argued that such an enquiry can be only at a later stage and the appropriate stage would be in an election petition as in the instant case, when the election is challenged. The grounds stated in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the nomination. Likewise, where the blanks are left in an affidavit, nomination can be rejected there and then. In other cases where detailed enquiry is needed, it would depend upon the outcome thereof, in an election petition, as to whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance. Once it is found that it was a case of _________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.16424 of 2026 improper acceptance, as there was misinformation or suppression of material information, one can state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a later date. When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void. Otherwise, it would be an anomalous situation that even when criminal proceedings under Section 125A of the Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be countenanced.” 5. The Apex Court, in the judgment supra, has held that w hen an information is given by a candidate in an affidavit a long with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto qu estioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non- disclosure of certain important information, it may not be poss ible for the Returning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. The non-disclosure of material information in the affidavit is a valid ground for setting aside election by filing an election petition and such relief cannot be sought by way of a writ petition. _________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.16424 of 2026 6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to enter tain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accor dance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application stands closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 27.04.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No SRA _________ Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.16424 of 2026 To 1.The Director general of Income Tax (Investigation) Aayakarkaaryaalay, 121 MG Road Nungambakkam Chennai-600 034 2.The Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 3.The Returning Officer 17, Royapuram Assembly Constituency Old Jail road, Mint Street, Chennai, Tamil Nadu _________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.16424 of 2026 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J. (SRA) W.P. No.16424 of 2026 27.04.2026 _________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis