TVK chief Vijay submits corrected nomination papers for Perambur and Tiruchi East ahead of Tamil Nadu scrutiny stage

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief Vijay filed a revised set of nomination papers linked to his Perambur and Tiruchi East Assembly contests after discrepancies surfaced in the affidavits attached to the two filings. The corrections came before the end of the nomination window for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, with election authorities indicating that such errors could be rectified until April 6.

The issue emerged after comparisons were made between the affidavit Vijay filed for Perambur on March 30 and the one submitted for Tiruchirappalli East on April 2. Reporting on the two documents said the Perambur affidavit listed his age as 52 and stated that there were no pending criminal cases against him, while the Tiruchi East affidavit listed his age as 51 and disclosed two pending First Information Reports.

The fresh filing matters because election affidavits are not ornamental paperwork. They form part of the formal disclosure framework that candidates must submit along with nomination papers, including declarations on criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and other personal details. The Tamil Nadu election portal for the 2026 Assembly election lists Form 26, the candidate affidavit, among the required election documents, underlining the centrality of the disclosure process.

The revised affidavit, according to current reporting, brought the Perambur-side disclosure in line with the later Tiruchi East filing by adding the two pending FIRs. The Times of India reported on April 5 that Vijay, who had initially stated that he had no pending criminal cases, filed a fresh affidavit before the returning officer disclosing two pending cases while continuing his contest from both constituencies.

What discrepancies were identified between Vijay’s Perambur and Tiruchi East nomination affidavits?

The central discrepancies related to age and criminal case disclosure. The Perambur affidavit was reported to have shown Vijay’s age as 52 and declared no pending criminal cases, while the Tiruchi East affidavit recorded his age as 51 and mentioned two pending FIRs. That mismatch quickly became the focal point of scrutiny because both filings concerned the same candidate in the same election cycle.

One of the FIRs disclosed in the updated material was FIR No. 74 of 2026 at K5 Peravallur Police Station in Chennai, linked to alleged public obstruction during a March 30 roadshow. The second was FIR No. 108 of 2025 at Koodakovil Police Station in Madurai district, tied to an incident at a party conference in August 2025. Those two cases were described in the fresh affidavit now on record in current reporting.

The New Indian Express also reported that the two affidavits were said to contain contradictory declarations not only on criminal cases but also on designated election bank accounts. However, the most consistently reported discrepancies across accessible sources were the age entry and the criminal antecedent disclosure, which became the basis for the corrective filing.

TVK joint general secretary C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar said the Tiruchi East affidavit contained the correct and updated details and that the Perambur filing would be corrected. He said there had been confusion between running age and completed age while preparing the earlier document and that the correct age was reflected in the Tiruchi East filing.

Why was Vijay still able to correct the Perambur and Tiruchi East papers before nomination scrutiny?

The timing is crucial. Election authorities and election schedule notices made clear that nomination filing for the Tamil Nadu Assembly election began on March 30 and remained open until April 6, with scrutiny scheduled for April 7. That meant a candidate could still correct filing-related mistakes within the nomination period before scrutiny formally began.

DT Next reported that after the discrepancies triggered discussion inside and outside TVK, officials clarified that mistakes in submitted documents could be corrected within the nomination deadline. That clarification appears to have created the procedural room for Vijay’s revised submission rather than pushing the matter immediately into a rejection scenario.

That distinction is politically important. A discrepancy in an affidavit can become the basis for objections, controversy, or later legal challenge, but the immediate administrative question is whether the filing defect can be cured within the prescribed window. In this case, current reporting indicates that the correction route remained open because the deadline had not yet passed.

This also explains why the episode became more about procedural repair than instant disqualification. The election system’s structured timeline, which separates filing, scrutiny, withdrawal, polling, and counting, gives candidates a narrow but real opportunity to fix documentation problems before the scrutiny stage.

What does the revised filing mean for Vijay’s first electoral contest from Perambur and Tiruchi East?

For Vijay, the revised filing helps contain an avoidable procedural controversy at a sensitive moment in his first direct electoral contest. He entered the election from Perambur on March 30 and followed that with a second nomination from Tiruchirappalli East on April 2, a dual-seat strategy that had already drawn attention across Tamil Nadu politics.

Because he is contesting from two constituencies, any inconsistency between the two sets of documents was always likely to be noticed quickly. In practical terms, the revised affidavit is an effort to ensure that the record presented before scrutiny is internally consistent and less vulnerable to immediate challenge from rivals or election officials. That does not erase the political embarrassment of the mismatch, but it does reduce the risk of the issue dominating the scrutiny stage itself.

There is also a broader reputational dimension. Vijay and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam are trying to position themselves as a serious alternative in a highly structured state election. In that setting, paperwork errors are never just clerical. They become a test of organisational discipline, candidate preparedness, and campaign professionalism. The fact that the party moved to correct the filing before the nomination window closed suggests it recognised the cost of letting the contradiction sit unaddressed.

At the same time, the revised affidavit places on record details that were missing earlier, including the two pending FIRs. That means the immediate issue has shifted from whether the omission existed to how the correction is treated during scrutiny and in the political conversation that follows.

How does the election schedule shape what happens next in Perambur and Tiruchi East after Vijay’s revised filings?

The next procedural step after nomination filing is scrutiny. Tamil Nadu’s 2026 Assembly election schedule sets April 7 for scrutiny of nominations, April 9 as the last date for withdrawal of candidature, April 23 as polling day, and May 4 as the counting date. That sequence makes scrutiny the immediate institutional checkpoint for Vijay’s corrected papers.

In other words, the revised submission does not end the matter; it moves the question into the formal examination stage conducted by election authorities. If the corrected documents satisfy procedural requirements, the controversy may fade into the background of the campaign. If objections are raised, the earlier inconsistency could still be cited by opponents as a political and legal talking point. Current accessible reporting, however, points mainly to correction within time rather than to any official rejection order.

For now, the verified takeaway is narrower and more precise. Vijay filed revised nomination-related papers for Perambur and Tiruchi East after discrepancies came to light, and he did so within a nomination period that election authorities said allowed such corrections. In election administration, that is the difference between a potentially damaging defect and a defect that can still be cured before scrutiny.

Key takeaways on what Vijay’s revised Perambur and Tiruchi East nominations mean for Tamil Nadu’s 2026 election process

• Vijay’s original Perambur and Tiruchi East affidavits carried differing disclosures on age and pending criminal cases, prompting a revised filing before scrutiny.
• Election authorities indicated that nomination-related mistakes could be corrected until April 6, the last date for filing nominations in the Tamil Nadu Assembly election.
• The fresh affidavit disclosed two pending FIRs that were not included in the earlier Perambur filing.
• The immediate next institutional step is scrutiny of nominations on April 7, followed by withdrawal on April 9, polling on April 23, and counting on May 4.
• The episode has turned a nomination paperwork issue into a broader test of campaign discipline for Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam during Vijay’s first election contest.