[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Vaiko vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2026:MHC:820
W.P.No.1956 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER
KUMAR
W.P.No.1956 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
Vaiko
General Secretary
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam, ‘Thayagam’
12, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
.. Petitioner
vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The State of Tamilnadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Public Department
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3. The Tribunal under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967,
Represented by its Registrar,
Delhi High Court Building,
Sher Shah Road,
New Delhi – 110 003. .. Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
W.P.No.1956 of 2013
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for
issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order
made in Re Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) dated 07.11.2012 by
the Tribunal under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, New Delhi as
published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 04-
01-2013 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vaiko
(Petitioner-in-person)
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General
assisted by
Mr.Venkataswamy Babu
Senior Panel Counsel (for R1)
Mr.P.Anandakumar
Government Advocate (for R2)
R3 - Tribunal
ORDER
(Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The present writ petition challenges order dated 07.11.2012 passed
by the Tribunal constituted under Section 5 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short ‘Act’) confirming Notification dated
14.05.2012 issued by the Central Government and published in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part – II- Section 3(ii), bearing No.
S.O.1062, under which a ban had been imposed upon the activities of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE/association), declaring it to be an
unlawful association.
2. We have heard Mr.Vaiko, General Secretary of Marumalarchi
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, who appears in person to argue the matter,
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General for
Mr.Venkataswamy Babu, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi/R1 and Mr.P.Anandakumar, learned
Government Advocate for the Secretary, Public Department, State of
Tamilnadu/R2. The Tribunal, represented by its Registrar, is arrayed as
R3.
3. At the inception, Mr.Sundaresan assails the maintainability of
this writ petition, raising objections on the following grounds. Firstly, he
challenges the locus standi of the petitioner stating that, though the
impugned order has been passed confirming the imposition of the ban on
the activities of the LTTE, it is not the association that has challenged the
ban, but the petitioner, who is not a person aggrieved by the impugned
order.
4. Secondly, he submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal
had confirmed Notification dated 14.05.2012 that had a validity of only
two years. There have been successive Notifications imposing a ban on
the LTTE thereafter, and hence, the present writ petition is infructuous as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
on date. Thirdly, he submits that as the Notification has been issued by
the Central Government and confirmed by the Tribunal at Delhi, this
Court is not the appropriate Court for the Petitioner to have approached.
5. He takes a cue from the decision of this Court in Petitioners
Rights Forum v. Union of India and another 1 on a similar cause of action,
where all arguments as raised by him now had been raised, and answered
in favour of the Respondents. The State has filed a counter on 30.12.2013
echoing the submissions of R1, and objecting to the maintainability of
this writ petition.
6. In response, petitioner draws attention to the fact that the
preamble to Notification dated 14.05.2012 refers to ‘supporters,
sympathisers and agents of LTTE in the Territory of India’. Being a
sympathiser and supporter of the organisation, he derives his locus from
that.
7. Further, since the organisation has been banned, it is not in a
position to represent itself in the present matters and hence, he should be
permitted to plead its cause. On the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, he
points out that many of the hearings of the Tribunal were held in this
State and hence this Court would have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
8. We have heard the parties and have perused the facts of the case
1 (2013 4 L.W. 391)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
as well as the materials placed before us.
9. The sequence of relevant dates and events, and the background
to this matter, is as follows. The LTTE was declared to be an ‘unlawful
association’ by a Notification issued by the Central Government on
14.05.1992 in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, and subsequent
Notifications.
10. In terms of Section 4 of the Act, Notification in
S.O.No.1090(E) dated 14.05.2010 had been referred to the Tribunal for
causing an enquiry as to whether there had been sufficient cause to
declare the association as unlawful. The Tribunal, in the process of such
adjudication, has afforded sufficient opportunity to the association to put
forth its defence, that it did not avail.
11. Pending the reference, Mr.Vaiko had sought impleadment in the
matter, vide Application 1/2010, and his request came to be rejected on
25.09.2010. The Tribunal had however permitted Mr. Vaiko to intervene
in the matter, and also afforded full opportunity to present his case and
participate in the enquiry.
12. Apart from the petitioner, the Prisoners Rights Forum and the
Tamilar Desiya Iyakkam had also sought impleadment. Their petitions
had also been rejected by separate orders dated 06.10.2010 holding that
the measure of locus, so far as the Tribunal is concerned, would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
restricted by virtue of Section 4(3) of the Act, to the concerned
organisation and its office bearers only. Aggrieved by the rejection,
W.P.No. 23141 of 2010 had come to be filed by the Prisoners Rights
Forum, that was dismissed on 10.10.2010.
13. Final orders confirming the 2010 declaration had been passed
by the Tribunal on 12.11.2010, having heard the petitioner in full. As
against the aforesaid order, the Prisoners Rights Forum and Mr.Vaiko
filed writ petitions (W.P.No.26506 of 2010 and W.P.No.28388 of 2010,
respectively) that came to be dismissed on 01.07.2013. That order has
become final.
14. Even pending that Writ Petition, a Notification had come to be
issued afresh in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act, and for subsequent
periods of two years or, post amendment of Section 6(1) in 2013, five
years.
15. In respect of a Notification issued on 14.05.2012, the matter
was referred to the Tribunal that was constituted vide Notification dated
06.06.2012, and by order dated 07.11.2012, the Tribunal confirmed the
declaration of ban. The order of confirmation dated 07.11.2012 by the
Tribunal is challenged before us.
16. Successive editions of the Notification have been issued
thereafter from time to time, by virtue of which the ban continued to be in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
force seamlessly. The tenure of the ban was initially for a period of two
years, and thereafter five years, in terms of Section 6 as it stood at the
relevant points in time.
17. Learned Additional Solicitor General has argued that the
petitioner was not a party before the Tribunal in the proceedings
culminating in order dated 07.11.2012, that the petitioner is not a person
aggrieved, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter, and
that the present writ petition is infructuous by virtue of subsequent
Notifications issued under the Act. He has relied upon a decision of this
Court in Petitioners Rights Forum2, wherein the arguments now raised on
maintainability of the writ petition have been considered and accepted.
18. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered
view that nothing survives in the present writ petition now, as the
Notification confirmed by the Tribunal under the impugned order, has
itself lapsed, and has been succeeded by subsequent Notifications. The
Notification presently in force is dated 14.05.2024, having been
confirmed by the Tribunal on 06.12.2024. It is in operation till
13.05.2029.
19. The objections raised by R1 and R2 now on the aspect of locus
and territorial jurisdiction were raised even in the earlier writ petition, and
2 Foot Note Supra (1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
have been accepted in the following terms by the Division Bench:
‘13. In the case on hand, when admittedly it is the
case of the petitioners themselves that they are neither the
office bearers nor the members of the LTTE, it cannot, in
any Manner, be said that they are ‘aggrieved persons’ so as
to challenge the notification, particularly when LTTE itself
remained silent. Therefore, even on this ground of locus
standi, both these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are
liable only to be dismissed.
14. Further more, the impugned notification having
been issued by the Central Government on 17.5.2010 and
confirmed by the Tribunal, by its judgment dated
12.11.2010, by virtue of operation of Section 6(1), by this
time, since the prescribed two years period has already
lapsed, nothing survives in these matters to be contested
now. Therefore, even on this score, both these petitions are
liable only to be dismissed.
15. With regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain this petition also, we are in perfect agreement
with the arguments advanced on the part of the
respondents. The Tribunal adorns the Bench of the Delhi
High Court and but for some hearings in Tamil Nadu, for
all other purposes, the Tribunal is within the territorial
jurisdiction of Delhi High Court alone. The Tribunal
having been constituted at Delhi and being the Bench of
the Delhi High Court, in our considered view, these writ
petitions filed before this Court are liable to be dismissed
on this ground of lack of jurisdiction for this Court also.’
20. The above order has attained finality, having been accepted by
the Petitioner. Incidentally, R2 has filed counter dated 30.12.2013 setting
out objections to the maintainability of this Writ Petition, and no rejoinder
has been filed by the Petitioner to the same. We are hence, of the
considered view that the conclusions of the Bench as above, would apply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
to the present writ petition as well.
21. In this view of the matter, we do not propose to entertain this
writ petition any further, and have indicated so in the hearing, paving the
way for a request from the petitioner for permission to amend the prayer
to a challenge to the Notification presently in force.
22. We are not inclined to accept this plea at this distance of time,
and as the subsequent Notifications would constitute a separate and
distinct cause of action. We also do not deem it necessary or appropriate
to grant liberty to the petitioner, as sought, for any further challenges
along the same lines as the present and earlier writ petitions.
23. In light of the discussion as above, this writ petition is
dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M, J.] [M.S.K, J.]
24.02.2026
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes
vs
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi – 110 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
2.The Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu,
Public Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Registrar,
The Tribunal under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967,
Delhi High Court Building,
Sher Shah Road,
New Delhi – 110 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.
vs
24.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/02/2026 07:27:14 pm )
