Delhi High Court Refuses To Let Leader Of Transnational Govt Of Tamil Eelam Intervene In UAPA Proceedings On LTTE Ban

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed that the impact of allowing the impleadment could have far reaching implications on policy issues and relations with other nations. The Court remarked that judicial review has to be exercised with utmost caution in cases concerning the security and integrity of the country.

“The Petitioner claims to be the Prime Minister of a trans-national government of Tamil Eelam and the impact of allowing such a person to intervene in these proceedings under the UAPA, that too when he is admittedly not a member of the LTTE or an office bearer of the LTTE, is far reaching, as the stand of the Petitioner could have broader implications on policy issues and relations with other nations, which are not to be determined either by the Tribunal or by this Court.”, the Court said.

The LTTE was declared as an unlawful association way back in 1992 and this was renewed was by the Central Government every couple of years.

On 14 May 2024 the Central Government issued a notification where the LTTE was declared an unlawful association for a period of five years. The Tribunal was constituted under Section 5(1) of the UAPA Act on 5 June 2024 for adjudicating the declaration of LTTE as an 'unlawful association' under the UAPA by the Central Government.

Rudrakumaran filed an application under Section 4(3) of UAPA seeking impleadment in the proceedings before the Tribunal, however, it rejected his application. The High Court was thus considering Rudrakumaran's challenge to the Tribunal's order rejecting his impleadment.

The High Court referred to Section 4 of UAPA, which provides that when an association is declared unlawful by the Central Government, it shall made a reference to the Tribunal within 30 days, for adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful. Upon such reference, the Tribunal shall call upon the association to show cause as to why it should not be declared unlawful.

The Court stated, “Section 4 of UAPA is clear to the effect that the inquiry by the Tribunal is to be conducted after issuance of a show cause notice to the association. Such a cause can be shown by either the association, its office bearers or the members thereof.”

Here, the Court noted that that TGTE and LTTE are not the same and that TGTE does not subscribe to all the ideologies of LTTE.

It stated that though Rudrakumaran and TGTE could be sympathizers of the LTTE, UAPA does not contemplate issuance of notice to sympathizers or supporters of the unlawful association.

“It is reiterated that the law does not contemplate issuance of notice to sympathizers or supporters. It only contemplates issuance of notice to the association or its office bearers or its members under Section 4(3).”

Rudrakumaran relied on the Tribunal's order dated 12 November 2010, where Vaiko, the General Secretary of MDMK, was allowed intervention to the proceedings.

The Court noted that Vaiko was not impleaded as a party but was merely permitted to intervene and address submissions before the Tribunal. It further noted that Rudrakumaran cannot be equated with Vaiko as is a citizens of India and based out of India.

It stated that Rudrakumaran is a permanent resident of United States of America and not bound by Indian laws. It observed, “The Tribunal which is holding hearings currently is a Tribunal purely constituted under Indian law i.e., the UAPA. The powers of the Tribunal include powers of contempt, punishment for false evidence and all such similar powers as exercised by Civil and Criminal Courts in the country as contemplated under Sections 5 and 9 of UAPA.”

The Court further observed that the principles of fairness and natural justice are being followed by the Tribunal as “…state of Tamil Nadu as also other sympathizers of the LTTE based out of India are already being heard by the Tribunal, by way of interventions…”

The Court thus upheld the Tribunal's order and dismissed the petition.

Case title: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran vs. The Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1185