Madras High Court Dismisses Vaiko's Plea Challenging 2012 LTTE Ban, Says Expired Notification Can't Be Adjudicated

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that the notification did not exist as on date and the court could not spend its judicial time on adjudicating an expired issue.

“We're ready to hear you. But not a matter that is expired. That's the only issue. The original notification was expired. Nothing survives. We can't spend judicial time on a matter that is not there. We're not in a position to issue any direction in this case in view of the expiry. We'll have to close it,” the court orally said.

For context, LTTE was banned by the Central government in 1992 following the assassination of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. Initially the ban was extended every 2 years through fresh orders. Since 2014, the order was extended by 5 years through fresh orders. In the present plea, Vaiko had challenged the order issued in 2012, not the subsequent orders issuing fresh ban.

The Court also noted that the appropriate forum to raise a grievance against the ban would be the tribunal constituted under the UAPA. At the same time, the court also noted that the petitioner, Vaiko, not being an aggrieved party, could not have challenged the notification.

The Court also refused to give liberty to the petitioner to challenge the new notification. “You don't need liberty sir. That's an entire different notification. This has outlived its course,” the court orally remarked.

Vaiko argued that the ban was illegal and should be lifted. He argued that the LTTE was only fighting for the rights of Tamil in northern and eastern Sri Lanka and did not intend to cause any harm in India.

The Central Government, however, raised preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the plea on behalf of Vaiko. It cited the example of Delhi High Court which rejected an application filed by third parties seeking to be impleaded in the LTTE matter.

The Union also pointed out that the petitioner was in no way aggrieved by the order. It was argued that the organisation that was aggrieved by the ban had not appeared or challenged the order. The Union also pointed out that nothing survived in the plea, since every time a fresh notification was being issued for banning the organisation, it was not a case of extension. The Union further argued that since the subsequent notifications were not challenged, the present plea should be rejected.

In reply, the petitioner argued that he had approached the Court since there was no one else to argue for the organisation. “I've come to this court because there is no one else to argue for them. They can't enter the land of India,” he said.

To this, the Court said that it was not upon the Court to tell the organisation how to make itself heard.

The court also took note of a 2010 order that had upheld the ban. Thus, after considering the materials, the court dismissed the plea noting that nothing survived in the plea.

A detailed Order Copy is awaited.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr Vaiko (party in person)

Counsel for Respondents: Mr ARL Sundaresan, ASG assisted by Mr Venkataswamy Babu SPC

Case Title: Vaiko v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87

Case No: WP 1956 of 2013