IHC informed about Indian non-seriousness to implement ICJ's decision about Kulbhushan's review petition
File Photo

ISLAMABAD, Oct 06 (APP): Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Javed on Tuesday informed the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that the Indian reply had indicated that it was not serious about the implementation of International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) decision pertaining to its spy Kulbhushan Jadhav.

He said it seemed that India was only engaged in just giving false statements to politicize the matter.

A larger bench of IHC, however, sought assistance from Attorney General for Pakistan and amicus curiae in a case pertaining to appointment of a lawyer for Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, keeping in view past identical decisions of International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The larger bench, presided by Chief Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, heard the petition moved by Ministry of Law and Justice, seeking appointment of a lawyer for the Indian spy to implement the ICJ’s decision.

Besides Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan, Hamid Khan and others appeared before the court.

At the outset of hearing, the Attorney General informed the court that the government had conveyed the court orders to India on September 4, giving it another opportunity to appoint a counsel for Jadhav to contest his review petition but it answered Pakistan with objections on September 7.

He said that the neighbouring country was not concerned about the future of its former navy officer.

The Indian government, he added, could approach the IHC to get relevant documents if it was serious in implementation of the ICJ’s order.

The India reply, the AGP said, had shown that it did not want to be part of the court proceedings in Pakistan about its spy and engage in only giving controversial statements to politicize the matter.

The government had also informed Kulbhushan Jadhav regarding promulgation of an ordinance under the Vienna Convention to appoint a lawyer for him but he refused to contest the case.

Actually India or Kulbhushan were not in the position to face the trial, he added.

Khalid Javed said India had been using the tactics as it just wanted to give the false impression to the world that Pakistan was not willing to implement the ICJ’s decision.

Pakistan had promulgated the ordinance to implement the decision in its letter and spirit and its period had been extended for further 120 days, he added.

He said the government had approached the IHC to appoint a legal representative for the Indian spy under the ICJ’s judgment after he refused to contest his appeal.

The IHC could appoint a lawyer for him as it was necessary to honour the ICJ’s verdict.

Khalid Javed said Pakistan wanted to give an opportunity to Kulbhushan Jadhav for a fair trial but India had been violating the ICJ’s order by refusing it.

The court had to view that what effects could come on the sentence of Jadhav even after being given counsellor access.

He prayed the court to appoint a legal representative to contest the appeal on behalf of the Indian spy.

The chief justice observed that the government had given enough opportunities to India in that regard but it was not ready to take advantage of the offers.

He asked if the court appointed a lawyer for the Indian spy what would be its importance in light of the ICJ’s decision. Every step should be in accordance with the international court’s verdict, he added.

The bench asked the AGP to satisfy the court as to how the appeal could be heard when India and its arrested spy were not ready to contest it.

To this, Khalid Javed said the matter was not related to review of the death sentence instead it was regarding the appointment of a lawyer, while the fate of Jadhav would be decided in his review petition.

Chief Justice Athar Minallah said the the basic purpose was to implement the ICJ’s decision in its true meaning and directed the AGP to assist the court in light of identical decisions of the international court in the past.

The Attorney General said India had to approach only the IHC to get relevant documents but it did not. To this, Justice Aamer Farooq said India could directly approach the court.

The chief justice remarked that even the former Indian navy officer could also approach the court for legal relief.

The court would not doubt on Indian intention but it would must view that how the ICJ’s decision could be implemented.

The court would ensure to protect the basic rights of Kulbhushan pertaining to his life but he had to approach the court to avail the legal option.

The Attorney General requested the court to grant around three-week time so that they could view the previous decisions of ICJ and submit a report.

The court accepted the request and adjourned the hearing on the matter till November 9.