A division bench Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma He noted that the impact of allowing implementation could have far-reaching implications on policy issues and relations with other nations. The Court stressed that judicial review must be exercised with utmost caution in cases related to the security and integrity of the country.

“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, also when it is admitted that he is not a member of the LTTE or an office. bearer of the LTTE, is far-reaching, as the petitioner’s position could have broader implications on issues of policy and relations with other nations, which should not be determined by either the Tribunal or this Court.” said the Court.

The LTTE was declared an illegal association back in 1992 and was renewed by the central government every two years.

On May 14, 2024, the Central Government issued a notification declaring the LTTE an unlawful association for a period of five years. The Tribunal was constituted under section 5(1) of the UAPA Act on June 5, 2024 to resolve the declaration of the LTTE as an “unlawful association” under the UAPA by the Central Government.

Rudrakumaran filed an application under Section 4(3) of the UAPA seeking implementation of the procedure before the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal rejected his application. The High Court was therefore considering Rudrakumaran’s challenge to the Tribunal’s order rejecting his execution.

The High Court referred to section 4 of the UAPA, which provides that when an association is declared unlawful by the Central Government, it must be referred to the Court within 30 days, to decide whether or not there is sufficient cause to declare the association unlawful. . . Upon said referral, the Court will ask the association to demonstrate cause why it should not be declared illegal.

The Court declared, “Section 4 of the UAPA is clear that investigation by the Tribunal must be carried out after issuance of a show cause notice to the association. Such cause may be demonstrated either by the association, by its officials or by its members.”

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

He stated that while Rudrakumaran and TGTE could be LTTE sympathizers, the UAPA does not contemplate issuing notices to sympathizers or supporters of the illicit association.

“It is reiterated that the law does not provide for the issuance of notices to supporters or sympathizers. It only contemplates the issuance of notices to the association or its officers or members under Section 4(3).”

Rudrakumaran relied on the Court’s order dated November 12, 2010, allowing MDMK general secretary Vaiko to intervene in the proceedings.

The Court noted that Vaiko was not charged as a party but was simply allowed to intervene and make submissions to the Court. He further pointed out that Rudrakumaran cannot be equated with Vaiko as he is a citizen of India and resides outside India.

He declared that Rudrakumaran is a permanent resident of the United States of America and is not subject to Indian laws. Noticed, “The Tribunal currently holding hearings is a Tribunal constituted purely under Indian law i.e. UAPA. The powers of the Court include powers of contempt, punishment for false evidence and all similar powers exercised by the Civil and Criminal Courts of the country as contemplated in Articles 5 and 9 of the UAPA.”

The Court further observed that the Tribunal is following the principles of equity and natural justice as “…the state of Tamil Nadu, as well as other LTTE sympathizers based in India, are already being heard by the Court, through interventions…”

Therefore, the Court affirmed the Court’s order and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran v. Union of India and Anr. (WP(CRL) 3354/2024)