|
Tribunal reserves verdict
on Vaiko's plea against ban on LTTE
New Delhi: 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
