The Madras High Court has issued a notice regarding a writ petition filed against Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, alleging significant material discrepancies in the asset disclosures made in his election affidavits. The petition, filed by a voter from the Chepauk-Triplicane constituency, seeks an investigation by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs into the "suppression of assets" and financial contradictions.

The First Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, is slated to hear the matter on April 15, 2026. The petitioner, R. Kumaravel, contends that a comparative analysis of Udhayanidhi’s 2021 and 2026 affidavits reveals the "disappearance" of previously declared high-value assets without any explanation of sale, transfer, or restructuring.

The specific discrepancies flagged in the petition include:

Red Giant Movies Investment: In 2021, Udhayanidhi declared an investment of ₹7.36 crore in Red Giant Movies. However, this investment is entirely absent from his 2026 affidavit, which instead claims his spouse has invested ₹2.63 crore in the same firm.
Loan Disparity: The 2021 affidavit showed a loan of ₹11.06 crore advanced to Snow Housing Private Limited, whereas the 2026 document reflects only ₹10 crore, with no disclosure regarding the repayment or status of the remaining ₹1.06 crore.
Spousal Investments: The petitioner highlighted contradictions regarding investments in Raj Promoters Private Limited, noting that the spouse's declared investment of ₹5.76 crore is at odds with the company's own financial statements showing a loan of ₹6.75 crore received from her.

The petition argues that such "mischaracterization of financial transactions" and "concealment of material particulars" constitute a classic case of asset suppression intended to mislead the electorate. Under the Representation of the People Act, candidates are mandated to provide a transparent account of their financial health, and failure to do so can lead to the disqualification of their candidacy or the setting aside of their election.

This legal challenge comes as Udhayanidhi Stalin seeks a second consecutive term from the Chepauk-Triplicane seat. While his legal team is expected to argue that the changes reflect legitimate restructuring or divestment, the Court’s decision to seek a response from the authorities indicates that the judiciary views these "vanishing assets" as a matter requiring formal scrutiny. The outcome could significantly impact the political momentum of the DMK ahead of the 2026 Assembly polls.