ICJ on the Kulbhushan Jadhav’s Case

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

Facts

Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested by Pakistan and been in Pakistan’s custody since 3rd March, 2016. India had requested consular access many a times to Pakistan. But, without granting any access, Pakistan’s Court Martial sentenced Jadhav to death on 10th April, 2017 for espionage, sabotage and terrorism. Against this injustice, India alleged violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Access of 24 April, 1963 in the International Court of Justice.

Issues

  • Whether the International Court of Justice has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol?
  • Whether the sentence of the Court Martial of the Pakistan is in defiance of the Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Access?
  • Can the court order for provisional measures for preventing the execution of Mr. Jadhav?

Judgment

With regarding to the issue of maintainability, the court held that it was sufficient if the case can prima facie fall within the scope of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. The Article 36 deals with the rights of the countries to get consular access. Under the Article I of the Optional Protocol, the International Court of Justice have jurisdiction when a case concerning the interpretation and the applicability of the Vienna Convention is brought up. Therefore, the court denied Pakistan’s objections towards the maintainability and upheld its jurisdiction.

Thereafter, Pakistan argued that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention does not apply to cases of espionage, sabotage and terrorism. The court rejected this argument by stating that no legal analysis has been given regarding that by either parties. The court found that the rights invoked by India are plausible.

The court, then, turned towards the possibility for ordering provisional measures. There requires an irreparable prejudice and urgency for ordering provisional measures into a given case. Pakistan argued that there was no urgency. Jadhav had the legal option to apply for the clemency within 150 days. Therefore, the normal legal procedures of the Pakistan’s system itself can be sought to delay and re-examine the trial. But, the court rejected this argument too.

The court held that there is a risk of irreparable prejudice to India by the mere fact that as long as Mr. Jadhav is under the death sentence, he can be executed by Pakistan at any moment.

Therefore, the court ordered Pakistan to take all such measures to prevent the execution of Mr. Jadhav till the present proceedings ended and also, inform the court about the measures taken.

Learning Outcome

India was able to successfully stall the execution of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.

For other stories on Kulbhushan Jadhav, please click here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -