Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s election challenged, Sabarinadhan tells court Rs 91 cr assets undeclared

Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.

THE election petition filed by former Congress MLA KS Sabarinadhan in the Kerala High Court argues that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Rajeev Chandrasekhar had suppressed properties worth Rs 91.64 crore in his election affidavit.

It also alleges that he understated the book value of his holdings in several companies and concealed a liability to the financial institution Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) Limited that, with interest, could exceed Rs 200 crore.

Sabarinadhan had contested elections on a Congress ticket against Rajeev in the Nemom constituency in Thiruvananthapuram in the April 2026 Keralam Assembly elections.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who won by a margin of 4,978 votes, is also the state president of the BJP. Sabarinadhan, who came in third in the elections, is the general secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee. His petition, filed on July 31, argues that Chandrasekhar suppressed a true account of his assets and liabilities in his election affidavit and calls for voiding the election results.

Sabarinadhan contends that the electorate of the Nemom Assembly Constituency was deprived of material information that it was constitutionally entitled to receive before casting votes. “The suppression impaired the ability of voters to evaluate the financial affairs and business interests of Rajeev Chandrasekhar and thereby interfered with the free exercise of informed electoral choice,” the petition says.

It further states that the electors of the Nemom constituency predominantly comprise middle-class and agrarian families.

“The financial disclosures made by the candidates constitute a material factor enabling electors to assess and compare the background, economic status, and suitability of candidates seeking election. By suppressing assets of substantial value and substantial liability, thereby underestimating his actual wealth, [Rajeev Chandrasekhar] prevented the electorate from making an informed choice based on complete and accurate information,” the petition argues.

Sabarinadhan seeks to have Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s election declared void, alleging that his nomination was improperly accepted due to the non-disclosure of material assets, liabilities and the actual value of his shareholdings and that the suppression of this information amounted to undue influence and corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act; and that the omissions amounted to non-compliance with Section 33A, Rule 4A, and Form 26, affecting the election result.

Sabarinadhan’s contention of improper disclosure of assets and liabilities is based on Chandrasekhar’s alleged undeclared properties and financial commitments. According to the petition, Chandrasekhar declared immovable assets worth Rs 15.07 crore and total liabilities of Rs 107.39 crore. 

Properties worth Rs 91.64 crore

According to the petition, Chandrasekhar did not disclose two properties he owned in Bengaluru’s Koramangala 3rd block.

One of them, property ID 68-2-408, has a site area of 38,206 sq ft and a built-up area of 49,000 sq ft, according to property records cited in the petition. The land has been valued at Rs 59.98 crore and the building at Rs 17.15 crore, putting the total value at Rs 77.13 crore.

The petition also referred to property ID 68-2-445, with a site area of 9,240 sq ft and a built-up area of 19,620 sq ft. The land alone has been valued by the petitioner at Rs 14.50 crore.

Together, the two properties have been valued at Rs 91.64 crore in the petition. Sabarinadhan alleges that Chandrasekhar deliberately omitted both properties from his election affidavit.

Chandrasekhar had declared immovable assets worth Rs 15.07 crore in his Form 26 election affidavit. The petition says this amount largely represented a property in Koramangala with property ID 68-2-419, for which Chandrasekhar had disclosed a market value of Rs 15.07 crore.

The petition further alleges that Bengaluru city corporation records establish Chandrasekhar's ownership of the two properties that were allegedly not disclosed through property tax receipts and self-assessment forms.

Huge gap in value of company holdings

The petition also alleges that the value of Chandrasekhar's investments in several companies was substantially understated in his election affidavit.

In his affidavit, Chandrasekhar declared shares worth Rs 26.60 lakh in RC Stocks and Securities Pvt Ltd. However, the petitioner, citing the company's financial statements filed with the Registrar of Companies, alleged that the book value of Chandrasekhar's holding was Rs 15.54 crore. Book value reflects the shareholder’s proportionate share of the company’s net worth.

Similarly, Chandrasekhar declared 4,67,460 shares in Jupiter Global Infrastructure Private Limited, at a value of just Rs 22,260. The petition says the book value of his holding, based on the company's standalone financial statement, was Rs 4.16 crore.

In Minsk Developers Pvt Ltd, Chandrasekhar declared 48,860 shares worth Rs 3.87 lakh. The petition, however, cites the company's 2023-24 financial statement to say his holding had a negative book value of Rs 4.50 lakh.

The largest difference cited in the petition relates to RC Advisors Pvt Ltd. Chandrasekhar declared 6,87,660 shares, including preference shares, worth Rs 6.07 crore. The petitioner says the book value of this holding was Rs 64.40 crore.

Taken together, the petition states the book value of Chandrasekhar's holdings in these companies was around Rs 84.06 crore, compared to Rs 6.38 crore disclosed in his election affidavit — a difference of about Rs 77.68 crore.

The petition also refers to Jupiter Capital Private Limited's holding in the listed company Axiscades Technologies Limited. It says that Jupiter Capital holds 60.51% in Axiscades and that the market value of that stake alone was approximately Rs 3,663.27 crore. 

Sabarinadhan argues that this indicates that Jupiter Capital's actual value was substantially higher than its book value of Rs 1,670.37 crore recorded in its filings.

The petition uses these figures to allege that Chandrasekhar's financial interests were not fully reflected in his election affidavit.

IFCI liability

The third major allegation concerns an old loan liability involving India Paging Services Ltd (IPSL), in which Chandrasekhar was a major shareholder and served as director and chairman.

According to the petition, IPSL had borrowed more than Rs 50 crore from IFCI but defaulted on repayment. IFCI subsequently approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Bengaluru for recovery of the loan amount. 

The petition says Chandrasekhar had argued that the company's liability could not be fastened on him, as he had resigned from IPSL in 2001.

According to the petition, the DRT and DRAT rejected that argument, citing an undertaking signed by Chandrasekhar in 1998. The Karnataka High Court dismissed his challenge in January 2020, while the Supreme Court dismissed his subsequent special leave petition in February 2020.

The petition further cites an IFCI request for proposal issued in January 2026 for the assignment of the IPSL loan account. It says the document records a recovery certificate of Rs 83.23 crore, along with interest, involving Chandrasekhar and other entities.

Based on this, Sabarinadhan says that Chandrasekhar had a liability of Rs 83.23 crore plus interest and that the amount could exceed Rs 200 crore as of January 2026. This liability to IFCI was not disclosed in the election affidavit, the petition said.

Sabarinadhan, who is being represented by senior advocate S Sreekumar and advocate Sachin Jacob Ambat, describes the omissions as deliberate and substantial, arguing that voters were deprived of material information about Chandrasekhar's financial interests before the election.

The petition alleges that the non-disclosure amounted to undue influence on voters and constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act. It also alleged that the Returning Officer improperly accepted Chandrasekhar's nomination despite the alleged omissions.

Sabarinadhan also says that he had submitted a representation on March 24, 2026, during the scrutiny of nominations, under Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, objecting to Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s nomination.

He alleges that Chandrasekhar had failed to disclose a residential property in Bengaluru’s Koramangala 3rd Block (Property ID No. 68-2-408), describing the omission as material and substantial.

The Returning Officer, however, accepted Chandrasekhar’s nomination in an order issued the same day, holding that the non-disclosure was not substantial enough to warrant rejection.