The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition filed by a man claiming to be the “prime minister” of a transnational government of Tamil Eelam, who sought to be heard in proceedings related to the declaration of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) as an unlawful association. The petitioner, Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, who was born in Sri Lanka and is now a US resident, withdrew the plea after the bench expressed its reluctance to entertain it.

The bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, allowed Rudrakumaran’s counsel to withdraw the petition, leaving open the possibility for the petitioner to approach the tribunal through other legal avenues. Rudrakumaran had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court, in October 2024, dismissed his plea seeking impleadment in the proceedings before a Unlawful Activities Tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Background of the Case

The tribunal in question was set up in June 2024 to adjudicate the continued declaration of the LTTE as an unlawful association. Rudrakumaran had challenged a September 11, 2024, order of the tribunal that rejected his application to be heard in proceedings concerning the LTTE. His counsel argued that as a self-declared “prime minister” of the Tamil government in exile, Rudrakumaran had important information relevant to the tribunal, particularly regarding the concept and ideology of Tamil Eelam, a separate homeland for Tamilians in Sri Lanka.

However, the bench noted that the petitioner was not a member of the LTTE and observed that the Delhi High Court had already considered the implications of allowing a foreign national, who was not affiliated with the organization, to intervene in the proceedings. The High Court had pointed out that permitting such intervention could have broader implications for national security, policy, and diplomatic relations, matters that fall beyond the purview of the tribunal or the judiciary.

Key Arguments and Observations

Rudrakumaran’s counsel contended that the notification declaring the LTTE an unlawful association directly affected his client. He maintained that Rudrakumaran, who had served as a legal advisor to the LTTE and participated in peace process negotiations, possessed knowledge critical to understanding the LTTE’s ideology and the concept of Tamil Eelam. The counsel urged that the tribunal should be allowed to hear him.

The bench, however, dismissed the relevance of these arguments in the context of the petitioner’s lack of official membership or position within the LTTE. The Supreme Court observed that matters concerning the security and integrity of the country require judicial review to be exercised with utmost caution. It emphasised that the petitioner’s claimed role as the prime minister of a transnational entity could have wide-ranging consequences on policy and international relations, which cannot be adjudicated either by the tribunal or by the court.

Legal Context

The LTTE, initially declared a “terrorist organisation” by the Indian government, was officially declared an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities Act in 1992. The ban has been periodically extended, most recently through a notification issued on May 14, 2024, which declared the LTTE unlawful for a further five-year period. The legislation prohibits any association or activities that threaten the security and sovereignty of India.

The Delhi High Court had stressed that allowing a foreign national, even one claiming leadership of a government in exile, to intervene in these proceedings could set a precedent affecting national security and foreign policy. The court underscored that the petitioner’s lack of formal association with the LTTE or any office-bearing position within the organization rendered his intervention legally untenable.

Outcome and Future Options

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the plea, Rudrakumaran’s counsel formally withdrew the petition, requesting liberty to approach the tribunal or pursue any other legal remedy available under the law. The bench permitted this withdrawal, thereby closing the immediate legal avenue before the apex court but leaving the door open for alternative approaches to present relevant information to the tribunal.

The case highlights the delicate balance Indian courts maintain between providing legal recourse and safeguarding matters of national security and international diplomacy. While the petitioner asserted that he could provide crucial insights into the ideology of Tamil Eelam and the operations of the LTTE, the judiciary maintained that such matters could not override statutory provisions or pose a threat to India’s security and foreign policy interests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces India’s stance on maintaining strict control over issues related to banned organizations and highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in matters involving national security and foreign nationals. The ruling leaves Rudrakumaran with the option to seek intervention at the tribunal level but firmly establishes that claims of self-declared titles or leadership of foreign entities do not automatically confer legal standing in Indian courts, particularly in cases involving unlawful associations and matters of internal security.