Justice Vikramajit Sen, who constitutes the one-man Tribunal set up to go into the ban on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), on Friday reserved orders on the application filed by Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) general secretary Vaiko seeking to implead himself as a party to the proceedings and to oppose the proscription .
The Tribunal earlier heard Mr. Vaiko, Additional Solicitor-General A.S. Chandhikok, appearing for the Centre, and counsel S. Thananjayan for Tamil Nadu.
The ban was imposed by the Centre on May 14, 2010, for two years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
When Justice Sen asked Mr. Vaiko how he was affected by the ban, the MDMK leader said that under Section 36 Act any person could move an application seeking the lifting of the ban. In a situation where a person had no enforceable right and yet if he was likely to be affected by the Tribunal's decision, he could be permitted to be impleaded as a party.
When Justice Sen asked whether he was a member of the LTTE as he subscribed to its objects, Mr. Vaiko said one need not be a member to support the goals of an organisation. He “only supported the concept of a separate Tamil Eelam on the island [Sri Lanka] and that doesn't mean he was advocating a separate State.” Mr. Vaiko said that according to the Centre the LTTE had been decimated and therefore the outfit could not challenge the ban.
The MDMK leader said: “I make it clear that I am second to none in my patriotism to our country. But my problem is I have to face persecution for espousing the cause of Tamils and cases are registered against me. Innocent boys and girls coming from Sri Lanka are being branded LTTE supporters, arrested and sent to prison camps or deported back to Sri Lanka.”
At a juncture when Mr. Vaiko made political references, Justice Sen said: “I have a judicial brief, not a political brief.”
Mr. Chandhikok opposed the application and said that as Mr. Vaiko did not represent the banned organisation or was its member, he could not represent the outfit. For, there was a clear bar under the law. Also, there was no concept of impleadment in these proceedings. Mr. Vaiko could not claim a right of representation merely because there was some reference to his speeches in the ban notification.
Mr. Thananjayan pointed out that Mr. Vaiko was opposing the ban on the LTTE for the first time though it had been imposed every two years.
