Criminal case, Finance mismatch: Vijay’s affidavits spark controversy

Discrepancies in two election affidavits filed by actor-turned-politician Vijay have come under scrutiny, raising legal and political questions ahead of the Assembly elections.

The issue pertains to affidavits submitted for the Perambur and Tiruchirappalli East constituencies, which contain conflicting disclosures on criminal cases and election-related financial details . In the affidavit filed for Perambur and notarised in Chennai on March 30, Vijay declared that no criminal cases were pending against him . However, a second affidavit for Tiruchirappalli East, notarised three days later, lists two pending First Information Reports (FIRs) .

According to the Tiruchirappalli document, the cases include one registered at the Koodakovil Police Station in Madurai district and another at the Peravallur Police Station in Chennai . The latter reportedly relates to allegations of public nuisance and injuries caused during a campaign event involving bouncers . The omission of these FIRs in the earlier Perambur affidavit has raised concerns over possible suppression or misrepresentation of facts .

Further discrepancies have been flagged in the financial disclosures for election expenditure . The Perambur affidavit mentions a single bank account at the Indian Overseas Bank, Saligramam branch, with a deposit of ₹1 lakh . In contrast, the Tiruchirappalli affidavit lists two accounts, the same Saligramam account and an additional account at the Indian Overseas Bank, Tiruchirappalli Main branch, showing a balance of ₹90,000 .

Legal experts note that inaccurate or incomplete information in election affidavits can attract action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under Section 125A of the Act, concealment or false declarations may lead to imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both , and can also be challenged by rival candidates.

There was no immediate response from Vijay or his party on the discrepancies at the time of reporting.