Chennai, July 29 (IANS) The Madras High Court on Wednesday permitted the withdrawal of a writ petition that sought a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to investigate allegations that former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president M.K. Stalin had failed to disclose certain information relating to the DMK Charitable Trust in his affidavit filed for the 2026 Assembly elections.
A First Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the petition as withdrawn after granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue any other legal remedies available under law.
The court passed the order after hearing preliminary submissions from both sides. During the hearing, the Bench observed that the allegations raised in the petition did not appear to establish any personal interest of Stalin in the properties owned by the DMK Charitable Trust.
The judges indicated that the material placed before the court did not prima facie suggest that the former Chief Minister had any direct ownership or personal stake in the trust assets that required disclosure in his election affidavit.
Following the court’s observations, counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. Accepting the request, the Bench dismissed the case as withdrawn while preserving the petitioner’s right to explore other legal options, if advised.
The petition had been filed by T. Sivagnanasambandan, a 73-year-old advocate who contested against Stalin from the Kolathur Assembly constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election. He had entered the fray as a candidate sponsored by the Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK).
In his plea, Sivagnanasambandan alleged that Stalin had omitted to disclose details relating to his trusteeship in the DMK Charitable Trust while filing his election nomination papers. He claimed that the trust had acquired a property worth Rs 2.27 crore in 2019 and argued that the alleged omission warranted an inquiry by the Election Commission into the correctness of the election affidavit.
The petitioner had sought a judicial direction compelling the ECI to examine the complaint and take appropriate action under the relevant provisions governing election disclosures.
However, with the High Court allowing the writ petition to be withdrawn, no adjudication was made on the merits of the allegations, leaving the petitioner free to seek relief through any other legal forum available under law.
–IANS
aal/uk
