SC refuses to entertain plea seeking to be heard by tribunal in case relating to LTTE

NEw new delhi, The sublime margaret court on wed refused to think of a plea filed by a man, who claims to be the 'prime minister' of a transnational government of Tamil Eelam, seeking to be heard in a case pertaining to declaration of the LTTE as unlawful.After a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta showed its disinclination in entertaining the petition, petitioner Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran's counsel withdrew the plea.Rudrakumaran, who was born in Sri Lanka and is now a resident of the US, had challenged an October 2024 order of the Delhi High Court which dismissed his plea seeking impleadment in the proceedings before a Unlawful Activities Tribunal.The tribunal was constituted in June 2024 under the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, for adjudicating the declaration of LTTE as an unlawful association.Rudrakumaran had challenged before the high court a September 11, 2024 order of the tribunal which had dismissed the application seeking to be heard in the proceedings related to the LTTE.During the hearing on Wednesday, Rudrakumaran's counsel told the apex court that the petitioner was a representative 'prime minister' of the Tamil government in exile."Self-declared," the bench observed.His counsel said the question was whether a relevant party, who had important information to provide the tribunal, should be prevented from presenting the same only on the ground that he was a foreign national.The bench said the high court had observed that the petitioner was not a member of the LTTE.The counsel argued that the notification declaring the LTTE as an unlawful association said the ideology of Tamil Eelam, a separate homeland for Tamilians in Sri Lanka, was unlawful.The lawyer said the notification was directly affecting the petitioner.The bench observed the government had in 1992 declared the LTTE as an 'unlawful association' under the Act.The petitioner's counsel said Rudrakumaran was a legal advisor to the LTTE and had participated in the peace process.The counsel said the petitioner was the person having the knowledge as to what the concept of Tamil Eelam is and the tribunal should hear him."You want to withdraw , we will permit you to withdraw," the bench said.The petitioner's counsel urged that he be allowed to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the tribunal."The counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions, state that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be available under the law," the bench said.In its order, the high court had said matters which concern the security and integrity of the country were those in which judicial review ought to 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 UA, 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 high court had said.Initially, LTTE was declared a "terrorist organisation" by the Central Government and in 1992, it was declared as an "unlawful association" under the UA.The ban was extended and through a May 14, 2024 notification, the LTTE was declared an unlawful association for a period of five more years.This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.