Daily Times

The federal government on Wednesday approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) for appointment of a legal representative for Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav.

The federation, through the defence secretary and the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the General Headquarters (GHQ), has been made a party in the petition filed by the Ministry of Law and Justice. The move was made in the light of the International Court of Justice’s July 17, 2019, decision, following which the International Court of Justice (Review and Reconsideration) Ordinance, 2020, was enacted to implement the court’s verdict.

The petition stated that Kulbhushan, who was given death sentence for involvement in several terrorist activities in Pakistan, has refused to file plea against his sentence. The Indian spy cannot appoint a lawyer in Pakistan without India’s assistance, while New Delhi is also reluctant to avail the facility under the ordinance, the petition said. The government, in the petition, has asked the court to appoint a legal representative for Jadhav so that Pakistan can fulfil its responsibility for implementation of the ICJ’s decision.

Pakistan had last Friday offered to provide third consular access to Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav. A spokesperson of the Foreign Office had said that Islamabad had informed New Delhi about the decision, adding that Pakistan had also suggested providing the consular access without the presence of the security personnel. The development followed a day after Pakistan provided the second consular access to Jadhav. “Two consular officers of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad were provided unimpeded and uninterrupted consular access to Commander Jadhav at 1500 hours,” according to a Foreign Office statement issued on the occasion. However, late that evening, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had said that two officials from the Indian High commission in Islamabad – who had been provided consular access – left without hearing the Indian spy out. In a statement, he had said that consular access was given according to the terms agreed upon. “India’s ill intentions have come to light. They didn’t want consular access. [Jhadav] kept asking the Indian diplomats to talk to him and they left,” he had said. Calling the behaviour of the officials ‘astonishing’, Qureshi had questioned that if Indian diplomats didn’t want to talk to Jadhav, why did they ask for consular access. “They had objected to the glass that had been placed in the middle so we removed it. They had also objected to audio and video recordings so that was also not done. We fulfilled all their requests, but still they left.” he had said.

Last year, Jadhav was given first consular access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 on September 2. Earlier, the mother and wife of Commander Jadhav were also allowed to meet him on December 25, 2017, as a humanitarian gesture.

Jadhav – a serving commander of the Indian Navy associated with Indian spy agency Research and Analysis Wing – was arrested on March 3, 2016, from Balochistan on allegations of espionage and terrorism. In his trial at a military court after his arrest, Jadhav had confessed to his involvement in terrorist plots in Pakistan. He was subsequently sentenced to death in 2017. However, India insisted that Jadhav was not a spy and said he was kidnapped from Iran. On April 10, 2017, Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa endorsed the death penalty for Jadhav. In June 2017, the Indian spy had filed a mercy petition against his death penalty, in which he again confessed to his involvement in terrorist activities. However, before Pakistani authorities could make a final decision, the ICJ, after being approached by India, had ordered a stay in his execution through an interim order in 2019. Later that year, ICJ announced its verdict, ruling that Jadhav be allowed consular access immediately and asked Pakistan to ensure ‘effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences’.

The ICJ, however, had rejected all other remedies sought by India, which included the annulment of the military court decision convicting Jadhav, restricting Pakistan from executing the sentence, securing Jadhav’s release and ordering his return to India. The ICJ said that even though it had found Pakistan in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), “it is not the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav which are to be regarded as a violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.”