LTTE ban: Sympathisers want to be heard as parties

LTTE sympathisers on Tuesday appeared before a tribunal examining the validity of the Union government's ban on the Tamil Tigers and sought to be heard as parties aggrieved by the proscription.
Justice Vikramajit Sen of the Delhi high court, who heads the tribunal, reserved orders on the their petitions after holding an open hearing for more than three hours on the premises of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy here.

Lawyers for P Nedumaran, convener of the Tamils' National Movement, and the Tamil Nadu People's Rights Forum (TNPRF) argued before the tribunal that they were aggrieved parties, as they were sympathisers of the Eelam Tamil' cause. The Union government opposed their plea to be included in the proceedings on the ground that they lacked locus standi, while the state government submitted material such as details of police cases against LTTE members and sympathisers to justify the ban.

Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, a tribunal headed by a high court judge should examine the validity of a ban within six months of it being notified. The ban on the LTTE, which was first proscribed in 1992, is renewed every two years. The tribunal will hold another hearing in Udhagamandalam on October 20.

N Chandrasekaran, counsel for Nedumaran, and M Radhakrishnan, appearing for TNPRF, questioned the government's stand that the LTTE still existed in Tamil Nadu and that it posed a threat to India's sovereignty. The organisation was said to have been decimated and there was no point in banning a non-existent outfit, they argued.

They also contended that sympathisers of the Eelam Tamil' cause faced arrest and prosecution on serious charges such as sedition. "We are, therefore, aggrieved by the ban and should be heard as parties," they said.

Radhakrishnan said sympathisers and supporters could validly question the ban and it was not necessary that only members or office-bearers should appear before the tribunal. On the other hand, additional solicitor general Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, appearing for the Central government, questioned their locus standi. He argued that the tribunal's role was restricted to considering the material given by the government in support of the ban, while the banned outfit was allowed to challenge it. There was no need for sympathisers and supporters to be heard.

MDMK general secretary Vaiko, another prominent LTTE sympathiser, was also present before the tribunal. He later told reporters that his petition for being heard had been dismissed by the tribunal earlier, but the judge had made it clear that he would not be a "rubber stamp" for the government and that he would give an opportunity to hear alternative views.