Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently rejected the petition filed by one Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, Prime Minister of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), seeking to be impleaded as a party in UAPA Tribunal proceedings pertaining to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's (LTTE) ban.

Aggrieved by the order dated September 11, the petitioner moved the present petition to be impleaded as party in order to contest the ban on the LTTE. On September 11, the tribunal dismissed his application under Section 4(3) of the UAPA, on the ground that the petitioner is neither an office bearer nor a member of the LTTE and that the TGTE is a separate political entity representing Tamil Eelam.

A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed that judicial review in matters concerning the security and integrity of the country must be exercised with “utmost caution."The petitioner claims to be the Prime Minister of a transnational 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."

Emphasizing that the stand of the petitioner could have broader implications on policy issues and relations with other nations, the court upheld the decision of the tribunal and reiterated that "...the law does not contemplate the issuance of notice to sympathizers or supporters. It only contemplates the issuance of notice to the association, its office bearers, or its members under Section 4(3)...

 Additional Solicitor General Mr Chetan Sharma, appearing for the state, argued that when issues of territorial sovereignty and integrity are involved, mere sympathizers of an organization, that to a foreigner, cannot be permitted to intervene in proceedings conducted by the Tribunal under Section 4(3) of UAPA.

Conversely, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner is one of the supporters and sympathizers of the LTTE and that no one is appearing for the LTTE before the Tribunal. She further placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal, which permitted Mr Vaiko, General Secretary of the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), to present his inputs in the respective proceedings.

However, the court clarified that Mr Vaiko was not impleaded as a party but was merely permitted to intervene and address submissions before the Tribunal. It further said that the present petitioner cannot be equated with Mr Vaiko, as he is based out of India and is a citizen of India. He is subject to the jurisdiction of Indian courts and Indian law. However, the petitioner’s case is distinct as he is a permanent resident of the United States of America and is not bound by the laws of India.

The court recalled that the petitioner had earlier filed an application for impleadment on 30th October 2011 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on the ground of locus standi.

The court concluded by saying that currently, the tribunal is hearing interventions by the state of Tamil Nadu as well as other sympathizers of the LTTE based out of India, which shows that the basic principles of fairness and natural justice are being duly followed by the tribunal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.

Case title: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran vs. The Union Of India & Anr. (W.P.(CRL) 3354/2024)