Kulbhushan Jadhav case in ICJ: New developments made by Apex Court

Kulbhushan Jadhav case in ICJ: New developments made by Apex Court

ISLAMABAD: Indian RAW agent Kulbhushan Jadhav case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seems to be lingering long as new deadlines have been placed by the International Body and there are less chances of the case being taken up in 2018.

ICJ has given new timeline to both Pakistan and India for filing another round of memorials in the case of convicted Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, sources have revealed to The Express Tribune.

Sources revealed that the ICJ has set April 17 for India to file another memorial, while Pakistan will have to submit a counter memorial by July 17.

In view of the timeline, they also informed that there is little chance that the hearing of the case will resume in 2018, adding that the two-month summer vacations of ICJ judges will start in August, and when it ended, the court will take up cases that have already been fixed before it.

Earlier, New Delhi sought time to file an additional memorial at the ICJ. Legal experts are, however, wondering why India is trying to unnecessarily drag the matter.

While submitting a 1,700-page counter memorial in the ICJ on December 13 last year, Pakistan rejected the Indian objection of not giving consular access to Jadhav, saying the provision of such access under the Vienna Convention is only for legitimate visitors, and not spies.

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

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

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

It was learnt that the government has also sought legal assistance from two top lawyers of the country. The initial memorial was drafted by Khawar Qureshi.

According to sources, Pakistan stated in the memorial that India did not explain how a serving naval commander, operating under India’s 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 added.

It said since Jadhav was on active duty, it is obvious that he was a spy sent on a special mission.

“Only a state that 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,” Pakistan contended.

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