Plea Against LTTE Ban : Supreme Court Refuses Intervention Of Person Claiming To Be Tamil Eelam Transnational Govt Leader

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a plea filed by Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, stated to be the Prime Minister of Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE), for impleadment in UAPA Tribunal proceedings concerning the declaration of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as unlawful association.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and dismissed it as withdrawn, after hearing Advocate Payoshi Roy. The Court however gave Rudrakumaran liberty to avail any other remedy that may be available in law.

To recap, 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 whereby the LTTE was declared an unlawful association for a period of 5 years. The Tribunal was constituted under Section 5(1) of the UAPA on 5 June 2024 for adjudicating the declaration of LTTE as an 'unlawful association' 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. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court.

In 2024, the High Court dismissed Rudrakumaran's plea. It observed that the impact of allowing the impleadment could have far reaching implications on policy issues and relations with other nations. The Court further noted 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.

It also observed that TGTE and LTTE were not the same and TGTE did not subscribe to all ideologies of LTTE. The Court further stated that though Rudrakumaran and TGTE could be sympathizers of LTTE, UAPA did not contemplate issuance of notice to sympathizers or supporters of an unlawful association.

So far as Rudrakumaran relied on the Tribunal's order dated 12 November 2010, whereby Vaiko, the General Secretary of MDMK, was allowed to intervene in the proceedings, the Court noted that Vaiko was not impleaded as a party. He was merely permitted to intervene and address submissions before the Tribunal. It was further noted that Rudrakumaran could not be equated with Vaiko who was a citizen of India (based out of the country).

Today, Payoshi Roy summarized the issue arising in the case thus: whether a relevant party who has important information to provide to the UAPA Tribunal should be prevented from doing so only on the ground of their being a foreign national?

When the bench pointed out that Rudrakumaran had no connection with the LTTE, Roy replied that the Central government notification did not only declare the organization as "unlawful association" but also the ideology of Tamil Eelam (a separate homeland for Tamilians in Sri Lanka). She submitted that Rudrakumaran is the representative Prime Minister of the Tamil government in exile.

Hearing her, Justice Mehta commented, "self-declared...". The judge further noted that the notification against LTTE was first issued in 1992 and renewed thereafter. At this point, Roy added that Rudrakumaran was Legal Advisor to the LTTE and participated in the peace process. "Therefore, I am the only person with the knowledge as to what the concept of Tamil Eelam is...the High Court agrees that under CPC, I would be a relevant party. I'm simply saying let the Tribunal hear my expert opinion", she said.

"Whenever next notification is issued, you make sure..." posed Justice Nath. Roy however claimed that Rudrakumaran made representations but everytime he was barred on the ground that he is a foreign national. Ultimately, the bench dismissed the case as withdrawn.

Case Title: VISUVANATHAN RUDRAKUMARAN Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., Diary No. 44958-2025