India submits reply to ICJ in Jadhav case

Pakistan embassy at The Hague confirms receiving New Delhi’s rejoinder

ISLAMABAD: India has submitted a rejoinder in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of convicted Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, whose execution was stayed by the court on May 18 last year.

Last year, India had approached the ICJ against the denial of consular access by Pakistan to Commander Jadhav, who was awarded death sentence by a military court for his subversive activities inside Pakistan.

“Pakistan’s embassy at The Hague has received India’s rejoinder,” a senior official confirmed to The Express Tribune. He said Pakistan would submit its reply by July 17, adding that that was the second round of filing written submissions.

The official, however, said there were lesser chances that the hearing of the case would be fixed in the current year, adding that summer vacations of ICJ judges spanning two months would start in August and later, the ICJ would take up the cases that had already been fixed.



The official, therefore, expects the hearing of the case to commence early next year.

Legal experts believe there will be nothing new in India’s rejoinder because both the countries had already shared most of the points during press briefings.



Earlier, New Delhi had sought time to file a rejoinder over Pakistan’s counter memorial at the ICJ.

While submitting the counter memorial at the ICJ on December 13 last year, Pakistan had rejected the Indian objection to denying consular access to Jadhav, saying the provision of such an access under the Vienna Convention is only for legitimate visitors and not spies.

According to Pakistan, since India did not deny that Jadhav was travelling with an assumed Muslim name, they have no case to plead.

India has sought consular access to Jadhav repeatedly but Pakistan has turned down its requests, citing bilateral accord that does not permit such an access to spies.

However, on December 25, 2017, Islamabad allowed Jadhav’s mother and wife to meet with him on purely humanitarian grounds.

It is learnt that the government has also sought legal assistance from two top lawyers of the country. However, the memorial was drafted by Pakistan’s top attorney Khawar Qureshi.

According to sources, Pakistan stated in the memorial that the Indians have not denied that Jadhav was travelling on a passport with an assumed Muslim name. It said India did not explain how a serving naval commander, operating under the Indian spy agency – Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) – was travelling under an assumed name.



“This leads to only one conclusion that India seeks consular access to the information he [Jadhav] had gathered,” it said, adding that since Jadhav was on active duty, it was obvious that he was a spy sent on a special mission.

“Only a state which adheres to legitimate actions can request the court to intervene in a matter between two states. A state which does not come with clean hands cannot get any relief,” the memorial contended.

It further said that sending Jadhav for espionage and funding terrorist activities were some of the reasons that disentitled India from invoking jurisdiction of the ICJ.

According to sources, Pakistan also highlighted constant violations of human rights by India in Occupied Kashmir. Pakistan called India a habitual violator of human rights which had not honoured the UN resolutions on Kashmir.

“Giving false identity to Kulbhushan, sending him for espionage and funding of terrorists activities are all some of the reasons which disentitle India from invoking jurisdiction of the ICJ,” said the counter memorial, according to the sources.

India on September 13 last year submitted a 22-page memorandum wherein it objected to Jadhav being tried by a military court in Pakistan.



The sources said India contended that Jadhav’s trial should have been conducted by a civilian court and that Pakistan was bound to give him consular access.

The federal government had already appointed former chief justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani as ad hoc judge for the case at The Hague.

Legal experts are urging all stakeholders to increase coordination in devising the final draft of the memorandum.