The Madras High Court on Wednesday said it can not be disputed that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was enacted for providing a more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations.
The legislation's sole objective was to ensure national integrity and to prevent any activity which was intended to disrupt the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice M.Y.Eqbal and Justice T.S.Sivagnanam made the observation while dismissing a writ petition by a former LTTE cadre challenging an order of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal rejecting his petition. In the petition, the petitioner sought to cancel a Centre's notification of May 17 this year declaring LTTE as an unlawful association.
In the writ petition, Vijayaratnam Sivanesan of Switzerland, represented by his Power of Attorney (PoA), Kalaiarasu of Vadugapalayam, Gobichettipalayam, said he joined the LTTE in November 1983 and had worked as a video cameraman. He left the LTTE in March 1990. He said that through his PoA he filed a petition before the tribunal for cancelling the declaration that the Tigers were an unlawful association. The tribunal rejected his petition by its impugned order of October 28 this year. Hence, the present writ petition.
The Bench said it had not been disputed that the petitioner after his release by the Indian Army left the LTTE movement in March 1990. A perusal of the impugned order revealed that the tribunal was of the view that there was no significant cause for hearing the petition filed before it through the PoA holder who had filed a sworn affidavit. According to the tribunal, there was no difficulty for swearing an affidavit by the petitioner himself when the PoA was executed by him.
“We fully agree with the view taken by the tribunal while rejecting the petition.”
The Bench said in the petition before the tribunal through his so-called PoA holder, nowhere was it mentioned that the attorney was also a member of the association or in any way interested in the association's activities. Having regard to the legislation's object, the Judges said they were of the considered opinion that if any association or individual moved the tribunal for declaring that such association was not unlawful, the association member should file a personal affidavit. He could not resist the notification through PoA.
The Bench said it did not find strong reasons to interfere with the tribunal's order.
