Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4504
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y. EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
P. Pugalenthi, Co-ordination Secretary, Tamil Nadu People’s Rights Forum
Versus
The Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by Home Secretary & Another
W.P.No.23141 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On : 19-10-2010
For the Petitioner:M. Radhakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Ravindran, Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by J. Ravindran, Assistant Solicitor General I.
Ratio
Tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 need not hear each and every sympathizer or supporter of the banned organisation if such person had nothing new to say apart from the contention already put by other persons opposing such ban.
Headnote:(A)Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967)-Sec.4(3)-Unlawful association-Ban-Tribunal-Proceeding-Hearing-Third party-Sympathiser-Hearing-Right-LTTE was declared as unlawful organisation and confirmation proceeding was heard by the Tribunal-Many political leaders in Tamil Nadu were heard by the Tribunal-Petitioner organisation sought for audience by alleging that it was a sympathizer-Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the application was not supported by affidavit, the address of the petitioner that was mentioned in the petition was incomplete and the petitioner was not having any new point-Order of rejection was challenged by the petitioner who contended that LTTE was not present in Tamil Nadu and its sympathizer should be fully heard-Respondent stated that the provisions of the Act were fully complied with and the Tribunal had already heard many leaders and the petitioner did not have any additional points to challenge the ban-Held, the Tribunal had already heard the Tamil leaders and the petitioner did not have any additional arguments-Writ petition was dismissed and the order of the Tribunal was upheld.
(B)Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967)-Sec.4(3)-Unlawful association-Ban-Tribunal-Proceeding-Hearing-Third party-Sympathiser-Hearing-Right-Tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 need not hear each and every sympathizer or supporter of the banned organisation if such person had nothing new to say apart from the contention already put by other persons opposing such ban.
In the instant case, as noticed above, the Tribunal has given full opportunity to the persons aggrieved and heard the parties, and therefore, in our view, the petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal therefore needs no interference by this Court. Para 11
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J
Heard Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent namely., the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short “the Act”)
3. It appears that the first respondent Union of India issued a notification dated 17th May, 2010 under Section 3(1) and proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967) (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) declaring the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (in short “LTTE”) as an unlawful association. The petitioner-Forum said to have filed a petition claiming itself as the sympathizer of LTTE and have a right to appear before the Tribunal. It was contended that the Tribunal is required to adjudicate whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the association as an unlawful association. It was contended by Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Forum before the Tribunal that the Tribunal must give an opportunity of hearing before declaring a person or association under the said Act. The Tribunal rejected the petition filed by the petitioner-Forum on the grounds inter alia that the Tribunal had the occasion to consider the submissions made by the other persons including Mr.Vaiko and none of the submissions made by Mr.Radhakrishnan travel beyond the arguments advanced by Mr.Vaiko.
4. Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner before us contended that LTTE is not present in India and only its sympathizers, supporters and agents are present in India. In view of the non-existence of the LTTE in India and in view of the alleged presence of its sympathizers, supporters and agents notices under Section 4(2) of the Act should not only have to be sent to the LTTE in Sri Lanka but also to the alleged sympathizers, supporters and agents who are present in India. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, unless the process prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Act is completed the process of adjudication under Section 4(3) of the Act could not have been commenced by the Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General of India has drawn our attention to the relevant provisions of the Act and submitted that the Tribunal while proceeding for adjudication has fully complied with the requirements of the Act.
6. Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to declare any association to be unlawful by issue of notification in the official gazette, if the Central Government is of the opinion that such an association has become an unlawful association. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act provides that such notification issued shall specify the grounds on which it is issued and such other particulars as the Central Government may consider necessary. However, the Central Government is not required to disclose any fact which it considers to be against the public interest. Section 4 of the Act provides that if any association is declared unlawful under Section 3, the Central Government shall within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification refer it to the Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful. The Tribunal shall thereupon call upon the association affected by notice to show cause and then, after holding an enquiry and adjudicating upon, either confirm or cancel the said notification. For better appreciation Section 4 of the Act is quoted herein below: -
“4. Reference to Tribunal. (1) Where any association has been declared unlawful by a notification
