Tribunal upholds extension of five-year ban on LTTE

New Delhi: A Delhi High Court tribunal has upheld the government's decision to extend a five-year ban imposed on the LTTE, saying the group continues to be a threat to India's sovereignty and territorial integrity and it is still indulging in activities prejudicial to integrity and security of the country.

The tribunal comprising Delhi High Court Judge Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the objective of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for a separate homeland (Tamil Eelam) for all Tamils threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.

It amounts to the cession and secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union and thus falls within the ambit of unlawful activities, the tribunal observed.

In the final conclusion, the tribunal observed that "it is of the opinion that there is sufficient and cogent material on record for declaring LTTE as an Unlawful Association within the mandate of the Act (UAPA)".

The tribunal was constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after the ban on LTTE was extended for five years on May 14, 2024.

According to a notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on Friday, the government has submitted before the tribunal that even after its military defeat in May 2009 in Sri Lanka, the LTTE has not abandoned the concept of 'Eelam' and has been clandestinely working towards the cause by undertaking fundraising and propaganda activities.

The remaining LTTE leaders or cadres have also initiated efforts to regroup the scattered activists and resurrect the outfit locally and internationally.

The home ministry said pro-LTTE groups and elements continue to foster a separatist tendency amongst the masses and enhance the support base for LTTE in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, which will ultimately have a strong disintegrating influence over the country's territorial integrity.

LTTE sympathisers living abroad continue to spread anti-India propaganda among Tamils holding the Government of India responsible for the defeat of the LTTE, which, if not checked, is likely to develop a sense of hate among the Tamil populace towards the government of India and the Constitution, it said.

Abhijit Sinha, a joint secretary in the counter-terrorism and counter-radicalisation division in the MHA, had filed an affidavit before the tribunal mentioning the reasons and grounds under which the ban on LTTE has been extended.

Sinha stated that as per the information and material received from the central intelligence and probe agencies pertaining to the unlawful activities of the LTTE, it has been found that the group's cadres and sympathisers are still active and continue to look at Tamil Nadu as a base for carrying out anti-India activities.

He submitted that despite the elimination of its top leadership, including V Prabhakaran, by the security forces of Sri Lanka, several LTTE cadres and sympathisers are being arrested and prosecuted.

The joint secretary in the MHA stated that the LTTE's objective for a separate homeland for the Tamils is still the forefront agenda which threatens the sovereignty and integrity of India and amounts to an attempt of secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union and thus falls within the ambit of unlawful activities.

Vaiko, the general secretary of Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), had sought impleadment before the tribunal over the issue.

His application was rejected but the tribunal allowed him to place his arguments and documents in a "limited extent" as he himself contended that he "sympathises" with the LTTE's "aspirations and deprecates its ban, which impacts various innocent boys and girls".

However, Vaiko has categorically denied that he is a member of the LTTE.

Appearing for him, advocate R Murali stated that the main bone of contention by the Government of India in declaring the LTTE as an unlawful association is the group's object for a separate homeland for all Tamils that threatens the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and amounts to cession and secession of a part from the Union, which is ascribed by India as unlawful activity.

He stated the said object of the LTTE for a separate homeland for Tamil Eelam is restricted only to the Tamils living in the northern and eastern part of Sri Lanka and the word 'Eelam' itself connotes 'Territorial Land within Sri Lanka'.

"The object of LTTE is not to have a separate homeland for Tamils in all the places of the world where Tamils are living, but instead it is only limited and restricted to Tamils living in Sri Lanka.

"The object of establishment of Tamil Eelam is not intended to take even an inch of land belonging to Indian territory. There is no material whatsoever placed before this tribunal to support the apprehension exhibited by the Government of India that the concept of Tamil Eelam includes annexation of any part of Indian territory," he submitted.

Another application was filed on behalf of Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran seeking impleadment. It stated that the applicant is an Eelam Tamil, born in Sri Lanka and is presently a permanent resident of the United States.

It was stated that the applicant was a legal advisor to the LTTE and had participated in the peace process between the group and the Government of Sri Lanka in and before 2009.

An additional solicitors general, appearing on behalf of India, submitted that the applicant had earlier sought impleadment in the proceeding held by the previous tribunal in 2019, which was dismissed.

It was contended that the applicant has no right to either seek impleadment or be heard as the applicant is neither a member nor an office bearer of LTTE and is also a foreign national. Later, the tribunal rejected his application too.