Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Article 226 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’) challenging the impugned order dated 11-09-2024, passed by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal constituted vide notification No. S.O. 2196 (E) dated 05-06-2024 under Section 5(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) for adjudicating the declaration of the organization ‘Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’ (hereinafter ‘LTTE’), as an unlawful association under Section 3(1) of the UAPA by the Central Government. A division bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma, JJ., held that it does not need any interference because the 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, shows that the basic principles of fairness and natural justice are being duly followed by the Tribunal.
The LTTE, a Tamil separatist organization based in Sri Lanka, has been proscribed in India due to its violent activities and perceived threat to national security. While the LTTE’s active operational structure has been largely dismantled, Indian authorities contend that its sympathizers and supporters continue to pose risks. In response, the Union issued a notification declaring the LTTE as an unlawful association under the UAPA. The Tribunal was established to review the legitimacy of this designation, examining evidence presented by the Union. During these proceedings, the petitioner, representing TGTE, applied for impleadment, arguing that TGTE is an independent organization promoting Tamil Eelam’s cause through non-violent and diplomatic means and is distinct from the LTTE. The petitioner’s position is that TGTE does not share LTTE’s ideologies and, as a separate entity, does not pose a threat to Indian security. The application for impleadment was filed to allow TGTE’s perspective in the Tribunal’s deliberations. However, this request was denied, prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
The petitioner’s application for impleadment was rejected by the Tribunal on the grounds of lacking locus standi and relevance, given that the petitioner is not an LTTE member and is a resident of the United States, outside Indian jurisdiction. This petition challenges the Tribunal’s order of non-impleadment, seeking the Court’s review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that TGTE’s advocacy for Tamil Eelam is pursued through peaceful and lawful means. The petitioner claims that TGTE’s focus on diplomacy and non-violence is fundamentally distinct from LTTE’s past activities. It was further contended that the Tribunal’s refusal to consider TGTE’s perspective in assessing the notification’s legality infringes on principles of fairness and transparency. Citing previous instances where Indian citizens sympathetic to LTTE, such as political leaders were permitted to present views before the Tribunal, the petitioner argued that TGTE should receive similar treatment. The petitioner asserted that TGTE’s unique position as a transnational body and his status as a non-Indian resident should not preclude him from being heard, especially as TGTE represents a distinct, lawful, and peaceful advocacy for Tamil rights.
Counsel for Union of India argued that the UAPA does not require or permit the participation of sympathizers in proceedings related to unlawful associations. The Tribunal is tasked with assessing LTTE’s current threat status to Indian sovereignty, not with providing a platform for groups with a similar separatist agenda, regardless of claimed peacefulness. The Union also emphasized that the petitioner’s status as a U.S. resident places him beyond the jurisdiction of Indian courts and laws, distinguishing his case from those of previous Indian sympathizers, who were allowed to address the Tribunal. Further, it was argued that the petitioner’s impleadment application lacked a substantiated legal basis and was a delayed attempt to influence ongoing proceedings that were already nearing conclusion.
The Tribunal found that the petitioner’s submissions did not meet the threshold for impleadment, as TGTE is not directly implicated in the notification against LTTE. The Tribunal noted that LTTE’s status as an unlawful association under UAPA pertains to its destructive activities against India’s national integrity, a position supported by intelligence and security considerations. The Tribunal emphasized that TGTE’s claim of being distinct from LTTE did not alter the latter’s designation as an unlawful association. Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the procedural limitations of UAPA, which permits impleadment or intervention only for those directly affected or having a substantial connection to the declared unlawful association.
The Tribunal also observed that TGTE’s transnational claims could complicate India’s internal policy matters and international relations, aspects not suitable for adjudication within the Tribunal’s purview. Noting that the petitioner’s previous application for intervention was denied in 2019 on similar grounds of lacking locus standi, the Tribunal determined that his current application was similarly unqualified.
Thus, the Court upheld the order and held that the Tribunal’s analysis was neither arbitrary nor perverse emphasizing that matters of national security, especially those concerning associations like LTTE, demand judicial restraint, as these decisions involve complex policy and security evaluations that lie beyond the judiciary’s typical ambit. The Court concurred with the Tribunal that UAPA’s framework limits participation to those directly affected by the notification, excluding sympathizers or non-member organizations like TGTE. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that since the Tribunal had granted interventions to Indian sympathizers and advocates for Tamil causes, the principle of fairness was observed, rendering the petitioner’s further participation unnecessary.
The Court also noted procedural delays by the petitioner in filing the writ, as the Tribunal proceedings had reached final arguments, and any intervention would disrupt the ongoing process. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere, dismissing the writ petition while allowing the petitioner the liberty to pursue any other remedies legally available.
[Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7512, decided on 28-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Mr. Stuti Rai, Mr. Bharathimohan, Mr. Santhosh K, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma ASG, Mr. Ripu Daman Bharadwaj CGSC, Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia CGSC, Mr. Apoorv Kurup CGSC, Mr. Balendu Shekhar CGSC, Mr. Mukul Singh CGSC, Mr. B Ramaswamy CGSC with Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Abhay Singh and Ms. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocates for MHA/UOI
Buy Constitution of India HERE
