• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Post Articles
  • ICJ Has Rightly Called Pakistan’s Bluff In Jadhav’s Case

Latest Articles

Back

ICJ Has Rightly Called Pakistan’s Bluff In Jadhav’s Case

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  26 Jul 2019     Views:717

It is most heartening to learn that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has in a latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment titled Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan) in General List No. 168 delivered on July 17, 2019 has rightly called Pakistan’s bluff in Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav’s case and minced no words in holding that Pakistan violated Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 by not informing Kulbhushan Jadhav without delay of his rights under Article 36(1)(b) to have consular access. Mr Jadhav was accused of involvement in espionage and terrorism activities. Criminal proceedings were initiated against Mr Jadhav and was sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan.

                                        Be it noted, the President of the ICJ – Justice Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf read out the order. 16 Public hearings were held from 18 to 21 February 2019, at which the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of eminent lead lawyer and former Solicitor General of India – Mr Harish Salve and Mr Deepak Mittal who is Joint Secretary in Union Ministry of External Affairs for India and Mr Anwar Mansoor Khan and Mr Khawar Qureshi for Pakistan. To start with, para 1 discloses that it was on 8 May 2017 that India filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter “Pakistan”) alleging violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (hereinafter the “Vienna Convention”) “in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian national, Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav”, sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan.  

                                      Of course, it is then pointed out in para 2 that, “In its Application, India seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, of the Court and Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (hereinafter the “Optional Protocol”).” Para 3 then states that, “On 8 May 2017, India also submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures, referring to Article 41 of the Statute and to Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court.” It is then further stated in para 4 that, “The Registrar immediately communicated to the Government of Pakistan the Application, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, and the Request for the indication of provisional measures, pursuant to Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court. He also notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the filing of the Application and the Request by India.”

                                    While elaborating further, it is then illustrated in para 5 that, “By a letter dated 9 May 2017 addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the President of the Court, exercising the powers conferred upon him under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, called upon the Pakistani Government, pending the Court’s decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, “to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on this Request to have its appropriate effects”. A copy of that letter was transmitted to the Agent of India.”

                               More significantly, it is then very rightly held in para 8 that, “By an Order of 18 May 2017, the Court indicated the following provisional measures:

            “Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the present Order”.

It further decided that, “until the Court has given its final decision, it shall remain seized of the matters which form the subject-matter of this Order”.” 

                                       Furthermore, para 9 then envisages that, “By a letter of 8 June 2017, the Co-Agent of Pakistan informed the Court that “the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ha[d] instructed the relevant departments of the government to give effect to the Order of the Court dated 18 May 2017”.” It is then enunciated in para 10 that, “By an Order dated 13 June 2017, the President of the Court fixed 13 September 2017 and 13 December 2017 as the respective time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by India and of a Counter-Memorial by Pakistan. Those pleadings were filed within the time-limits so fixed.”

                                          What we then see being divulged in para 11 is this: “Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of Pakistani nationality, Pakistan proceeded to exercise the right conferred upon it by Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case, it chose Mr. Tassaduq Hussain Jilani.” Para 12 then further reveals that, “Pursuant to the instructions of the Court under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar addressed to State parties to the Vienna Convention and to State parties to the Optional Protocol the notification provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court.”

                             Interestingly enough, we then see that it is then pronounced in para 13 that, “By an Order dated 17 January 2018, the Court authorized the submission of a Reply by India and a Rejoinder by Pakistan and fixed 17 April 2018 and 17 July 2018 as the respective time-limits for the filing of those pleadings. The Reply and the Rejoinder were filed within the time-limits thus fixed.”

                               As things stand, para 17 then illustrates the key claims which India made stating that, “In the Application, the following claims were made by India:

“(1) A relief by way of immediate suspension of the sentence of death awarded to the accused.

 (2) A relief by way of restitution in integrum by declaring that the sentence of the military court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36 paragraph 1 (b), and in defiance of elementary human rights of an accused which are also to be given effect as mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention; and

(3) Restraining Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the military court, and directing it to take steps to annul the decision of the military court as may be available to it under the law in Pakistan.

(4) If Pakistan is unable to annul the decision, then this Court to declare the decision illegal being violative of international law and treaty rights and restrain Pakistan from acting in violation of the Vienna Convention and international law by giving effect to the sentence or the conviction in any manner, and directing it to release the convicted Indian national forthwith”.”

                         While dealing with the factual background, it is first and foremost pointed out in para 20 that, “The Court observes that the Parties disagree on several facts relating to the dispute before it. Their points of disagreement will be mentioned where necessary.” Para 21 then postulates that, “Since 3 March 2016, an individual named Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav (hereinafter “Mr Jadhav”) has been in the custody of Pakistani authorities. The circumstances of his apprehension remain in dispute between the Parties. According to India, Mr Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran, where he was residing and carrying out business activities after his retirement from the Indian Navy. He was subsequently transferred to Pakistan and detained for interrogation. Pakistan contends that Mr Jadhav, whom it accuses of performing acts of espionage and terrorism on behalf of India, was arrested in Balochistan near the border with Iran after illegally entering Pakistani territory. Pakistan explains that, at the moment of his arrest, of an Indian passport bearing the name “Hussein Mubarak Patel”. India denies these allegations.”

                                         To be sure, para 22 then discloses that, “On 25 March 2016, Pakistan raised the issue with the High Commissioner of India in Islamabad and released a video in which Mr Jadhav appears to confess to his involvement in acts of espionage and terrorism in Pakistan at the behest of India’s foreign intelligence agency “Research and Analysis Wing” (also referred to by its acronym “RAW”).” However, it is then also mentioned in this same para ahead that, “The circumstances under which the video was recorded are unknown to the Court. On the same day, Pakistan notified the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations of the matter.”

                                      As it turned out, para 23 then brings out that, “Also on the same day, by means of a Note Verbale from the High Commission of India in Islamabad to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, India noted the “purported arrest of an Indian” and requested consular access “at the earliest” to “the said individual”. Subsequently, and at least until 9 October 2017, India sent more than ten Notes Vehicles in which it identified Mr Jadhav as its national and sought consular access to him.”   

                                  What is particularly disquieting to note is that Pakistan repeatedly denied consular access to India which it was duty bound to provide as a responsible country! But what it displayed was “total irresponsible attitude” which is inexplicable! It was roundly condemned everywhere.

                                   As we see, it is then noted in para 24 that, “On 8 April 2016, Pakistani police authorities registered a “First Information Report” (hereinafter “FIR”), which is an official document recording information on the alleged commission of criminal offences. Pakistan explains that, once registered, a FIR enables police authorities to initiate an investigation. In this case, the FIR gave details of Mr Jadhav’s alleged involvement in espionage and terrorism activities and stated that he was “under interrogation” by Pakistani military authorities. A supplementary FIR was said to have been registered on 6 September 2016. On 22 July 2016, Mr Jadhav made a confessional statement, which was allegedly recorded before a Magistrate.”

                                         While continuing in the same vein, para 25 then enumerates that, “The trial of Mr Jadhav started on 21 September 2016 and, according to Pakistan, was conducted before a Field General Court Martial. Various details of the trial were made public by means of a press release and a statement dated 10 and 14 April 2017 respectively. On the basis of this information (from the only source made available to the Court), it appears that Mr Jadhav was tried under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act of 1952 and Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923. According to Pakistan, after the trial had begun, he was given an additional period of three weeks in order to facilitate the preparation of his defence, for which “a law qualified field officer” was specifically appointed. All witness statements were allegedly recorded under oath in the presence of Mr Jadhav, who was allowed to put questions to the witnesses. During the trial, a law officer of Pakistan’s Judge Advocate General Branch “remained a part of the Court”.”

                             It goes without saying that the trial of Mr Jadhav was nothing but a “farce”, a “sham” and an “open mockery of due process of law”. Mr Jadhav neither had any consular access nor did he get any Indian lawyer to defend him. Just imagine that the accused himself was putting questions to the witnesses! Was Mr Jadhav a lawyer? Certainly not and this itself goes to show what type of trial was conducted by Pakistani military court!

                                     Anyway, we then see that para 26 discloses that, “On 2 January 2017, the Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations informing him of Mr Jadhav’s arrest and confession, which, in his view, confirmed India’s involvement in activities aimed at “destabilizing Pakistan”.” Para 27 then enumerates that, “On 23 January 2017, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan sent a “Letter of Assistance for a Criminal Investigation against Indian National Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav” to the High Commission of India in Islamabad, seeking, in particular, support in “obtaining evidence, material and record for the criminal investigation” of Mr Jadhav’s activities. The letter referred to India’s “earlier assurances of assistance, on a reciprocal basis, in criminal/terrorism matters”, as well as resolution 1373 (2001) adopted by the Security Council concerning measures to prevent and suppress threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. Pakistan claims that, despite reiterated reminders, prior to the hearings before the Court, it has received no “substantive response” from India regarding this request. India, for its part, refers to two Notes Verbales dated 19 June and 11 December 2017, respectively in which it stated that Pakistan’s request had no legal basis and was not, in any event, supported by credible evidence.”  

                                What India is saying is absolutely right! How incredible it is that a terror sponsor country like Pakistan where its PM Imran Khan himself concedes that 40,000 terrorists and 40 terror groups are active in Pakistan of which Jaish-e-Mohammed is directly funded, supported and trained by Pakistani Army and ISI has the guts to level charges of espionage and terrorism on an Indian naval officer Mr Jadhav!  See the gumption and guts of Pakistan that Pakistan which itself has for long been in the “grey list” of Financial Action Task Force” and can in October be put in “black list” also is accusing India of sending terrorist to a democratic country like India whose credentials are impeccable!

                                      Be that as it may, para 28 then goes on to add that, “On 21 March 2017, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan sent a Note Verbale to the High Commission of India in Islamabad indicating that India’s request for consular access would be considered “in the light of Indian side’s response to Pakistan’s request for assistance in investigation process and early dispensation of justice”. On 31 March 2017, India replied that “[c]onsular access to Mr Jadhav would be an essential pre-requisite in order to verify the facts and understand the circumstances of his presence in Pakistan”. The Parties raised similar arguments in subsequent diplomatic exchanges.”

                                      It cannot be lost on us that it is then observed in para 29 that, “On 10 April, 2017, Pakistan announced that Mr Jadhav had been sentenced to death. This was followed by a press statement issued on 14 April 2017 by the Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs. In addition to the above-mentioned details of Mr Jadhav’s trial (see paragraph 25 above), the statement referred to the availability of the following means of redress: an appeal before a Military Appellate Court within 40 days of the sentence, a mercy petition addressed to the Chief of Army Staff within 60 days of the Military Appellate Court’s decision, and a similar petition addressed to the President of Pakistan within 90 days of the decision of the Chief of Army Staff.”

                              What’s more, para 30 then reveals that, “On 26 April 2017, the High Commission of India in Islamabad transmitted to Pakistan, on behalf of Mr Jadhav’s mother, an “appeal” under Section 133B and a petition to the Federal Government of Pakistan under Section 131 of the Pakistan Army Act. India asserts that, because Pakistan denied it access to the case file, both documents had to be prepared on the sole basis of information available in the public domain.”   

                                  It would be worthwhile to mention here that para 31 then informs us that, “On 22 June 2017, the Inter Services Public Relations of Pakistan issued a press release announcing that Mr Jadhav had made a mercy petition to the Chief of Army Staff after the rejection of his appeal by the Military Appellate Court. India claims that it has received no clear information on the circumstances of this appeal or the status of any appeal or petition concerning Mr Jadhav’s sentence. The above-mentioned press release also referred to another confessional statement by Mr Jadhav recorded on a date and in circumstances that remain unknown to the Court.”  

                                      Needless to say, it is rightly pointed out in para 133 that, “The Court has already found that Pakistan acted in breach of its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention,

(i)                     by not informing Mr Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1(b);

(ii)                  by not informing India, without delay, of the arrest and detention of Mr Jadhav; and

(iii)                by denying access to Mr Jadhav by consular officers of India, contrary to their right, inter alia, to arrange for his legal representation (see paragraphs 99-119 above).”

                                     More seriously, it is then observed in para 134 that, “The Court considers that the breaches by Pakistan set out in (i) and (iii) in the paragraph above constitute internationally wrongful acts of a continuing character. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that Pakistan is under an obligation to cease those acts and to comply fully with its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. Consequently, Pakistan must inform Mr Jadhav without further delay of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), and allow Indian consular officers to have access to him and to arrange for his legal representation, as provided by Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c).”

                               However, it is then observed in para 135 that, “With regard to India’s submission that the Court declare that the sentence handed down by Pakistan’s military court is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention, the Court recalls that its jurisdiction has its basis in Article I of the Optional Protocol. This jurisdiction is limited to the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention and does not extend to India’s claims based on any other rules of international law (see paragraph 36 above). India refers to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to support its requests for remedies. In accordance with the rule reflected in Article 31, paragraph 3 (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Covenant may be taken into account, together with the context, for the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Court notes, however, that the remedy to be ordered in this case has the purpose of providing reparation only for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act of Pakistan that falls within the Court’s jurisdiction, namely its breach of obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and not of the Covenant.”

                           Moving on, it is then clarified in para 136 that, “As regards India’s claim based on the Vienna Convention, the Court considers that it is not the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav which are to be regarded as a violation of the provisions of the Vienna Convention. In the Avena case, the Court confirmed that “the case before it concerns Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and not the correctness as such of any conviction or sentencing”, and that “it is not the conviction and sentences of the Mexican nationals which are to be regarded as a violation of international law, but solely certain breaches of treaty obligations [on consular access] which preceded them” (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 60, paras 122-123).”

                                      Not stopping here, it is then further clarified in para 137 that, “With regard to India’s contention that it is entitled to restitution in integrum and its request to annul the decision of the military court and to restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, and its further request to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, to release Mr Jadhav and to facilitate his safe passage to India, the Court reiterates that 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. The Court also recalls that “[i]t is not to be presumed…that partial or total annulment of conviction or sentence provides the necessary and sole remedy” in cases of violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (ibid., p. 60, para 123). Thus, the Court finds that these submissions made by India cannot be upheld.”

                                       It is most refreshing and heartening to read that in para 138, the ICJ while endorsing India’s stand then observes that, “The Court reaffirms that “it is a principle of international law…that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation and that “reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act” (Factory at Chorzow (Claim for Indemnity), Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, pp. 29, 47). The Court considers the appropriate remedy in this case to be effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav. This is consistent with the approach that the Court has taken in cases of violations of Article 36 of the Convention (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 514, para 125; Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001 (I), pp. 65-66, paras 138-140 and p. 73, para 153). It is also in line with what the Applicant asks the Court to adjudge and declare in the present case. In the Court’s view, India ultimately requests effective remedies for the breaches of the Convention by Pakistan. The Court notes that Pakistan acknowledges that the appropriate remedy in the present case would be effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence.”

                                   What the ICJ clearly misses out here is that it is Pakistan which has always been opposed to effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence and has just confined itself to lip service alone by giving false assurances to ICJ which it acknowledges also as we see in the last part of this above para. It is Pakistan which has denied even consular access to Mr Jadhav. It is Pakistan which did not allow even fair trial to Mr Jadhav. Again it is Pakistan which did not allow even proper legal representation by providing an Indian lawyer of his choice to him!

                                  As it turned out, it is then underscored in para 139 that, “The Court considers that a special emphasis must be placed on the need for the review and reconsideration to be effective. The review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav, in order to be effective, must ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Convention and guarantee that the violation and the possible prejudice caused by the violation are fully examined. It presupposes the existence of a procedure which is suitable for this purpose. The Court observes that it is normally the judicial process which is suited to the task of review and reconsideration (see Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I) pp. 65-66, paras 138-140.”  

                                    To put things in perspective, it is then illustrated in para 140 that, “In the present case, the death sentence imposed on Mr Jadhav by the Field General Court Martial of Pakistan was confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff on 10 April 2017. The evidence suggests that Mr Jadhav appealed to the Military Appellate Court under Section 133 (B) of the Pakistan Army Act of 1952, but that the appeal was rejected. With regard to the petition procedure, the evidence suggests that Mr Jadhav has made a mercy petition to the Chief of Army Staff, and that the mother of Mr Jadhav has sought to file a petition with the Federal Government of Pakistan under Section 131 and an appeal under Section 133 (B) of the Act. There is no evidence before the Court to indicate the outcome of those petitions or that appeal.”

                               Going forward, the ICJ then elucidates in para 141 that, “The Court notes that, according to Pakistan, the High Courts of Pakistan can exercise review jurisdiction. The Court observes, however, that Article 199, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of Pakistan has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as limiting the availability of such review for a person who is subject to any law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan, including the Pakistan Army Act of 1952. The Supreme Court has stated that the High Courts and the Supreme Court may exercise judicial review over a decision of the Field General Court Martial on “the grounds of coram non judice, without jurisdiction or suffering from mala fides, including malice in law only” (Said Zaman Khan et al. v. Federation of Pakistan, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Civil Petition No. 842 of 2016, 29 August 2016, para 73). Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Constitution provides that any law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution is void, but this provision does not apply to the Pakistan Army Act of 1952 by virtue of a constitutional amendment (ibid., para 125). Thus, it is not clear whether judicial review of a decision of a military court is available on the ground of the rights set forth in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention.”   

                                      It would be instructive to mention here that the ICJ while referring to earlier decisions points out in para 142 that, “The Court takes note of the decision of the Peshawar High Court in 2018. The High Court held that it had the legal mandate positively to interfere with decisions of military courts “[i]f the case of the prosecution was based, firstly, on no evidence, secondly, insufficient evidence, thirdly, absence of jurisdiction, finally malice of facts & law” (Abdul Rashid et al v. Federation of Pakistan, High Court of Peshawar, Writ Petition 536-P of 2018, 18 October 2018, pp. 147-148). The Government of Pakistan has appealed the decision and the case was still pending at the close of the oral proceedings in the present case.”

                                     While endorsing India’s position, the ICJ observed in para 143 that, “The Court confirms that the clemency process is not sufficient in itself to serve as an appropriate means of review and reconsideration but that

      “appropriate clemency procedures can supplement judicial review and reconsideration, in particular where the judicial system has failed to take due account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Vienna Convention” (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 66, para 143).”

                                           Briefly stated, it is also pointed out ahead in this same para 143 that, “The evidence before the Court suggests that two clemency procedures are available to Mr Jadhav: a mercy petition to the Chief of Army Staff within 60 days of the decision by the Appellate Court and a mercy petition to the President of Pakistan within 90 days of the decision of the Chief of Army Staff on the mercy petition (see paragraph 29 above). The outcome of the petition submitted by Mr Jadhav to the Chief of Army Staff (see paragraph 140 above) has not, however, been made known to the Court. No evidence has been submitted to the Court regarding the presidential clemency procedure.”   

                                       It is then again reiterated in para 144 what India consistently maintains that, “In light of these circumstances, the Court considers it imperative to re-emphasize that the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav must be effective.”

                                       To say the least, para 145 then observes that, “In this regard, the Court takes full cognizance of the representations made by Pakistan. During the oral proceedings, the Agent of Pakistan declared that the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees, as a fundamental right, the right to a fair trial; that the right to a fair trial is “absolute” and “cannot be taken away”; and that all trials are conducted accordingly and, if not, “the process of judicial review is always available”. Counsel for Pakistan assured the Court that the High Courts of Pakistan exercise “effective review jurisdiction”, giving an example of the decision of the Peshawar High Court in 2018 (see paragraph 142 above). The Court points out that respect for the principles of a fair trial is of cardinal importance in any review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav to be effective. The Court considers that the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and its implications for the principles of a fair trial, should be fully examined and properly addressed during the review and reconsideration process. In particular, any potential prejudice and the implications for the evidence and the right of defence of the accused should receive close scrutiny during the review and reconsideration.”

                                          What cannot be dismissed lightly is what is stated in para 146 which says categorically that, “The Court notes that the obligation to provide effective review and reconsideration can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means is left to Pakistan (cf. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p 514, para 125). Nevertheless, freedom in the choice of means is not without qualification (Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment I.C.J. Reports 2004 (1), p. 62, para 131). The obligation to provide effective review and reconsideration is “an obligation of result” which “must be performed unconditionally” (Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 17, para 44). Consequently, Pakistan shall take all measures to provide for effective review and reconsideration, including, if necessary, by enacting appropriate legislation.”

                                         Suffice it to say, para 147 then states that, “To conclude, the Court finds that Pakistan is under an obligation to provide, by means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, taking account of paragraphs 139, 145 and 146 of this Judgment.”

                                     Simply put, para 148 then observes that, “The Court recalls that it indicated a provisional measure at its disposal to ensure that Mr Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in the present proceedings (Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Provisional Measures, Order of 18 May 2017, I.C.J. Reports 2017, p. 246, para 61 (I)). The Court considers that a continued stay of execution constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav.”  

                                       Most importantly, it is then held in the final para 149 that, “For these reasons,

           THE COURT,

(1)        Unanimously,

Finds that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article I of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, to entertain the Application filed by the Republic of India on 8 May 2017;

(2)        By fifteen votes to one,

Rejects the objections by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the admissibility of the Application of the Republic of India and finds that the Application of the Republic of India is admissible;

(3)        By fifteen votes to one,

                  Finds that, by not informing Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav without delay of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan breached the obligations incumbent upon it under that provision;

(4)        By fifteen votes to one

Finds that, by not notifying the appropriate consular post of the Republic of India in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan without delay of the detention of Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav and thereby depriving the Republic of India of the right to render the assistance provided for by the Vienna Convention to the individual concerned, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;

(5)        By fifteen votes to one

         Finds that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan deprived the Republic of India of the right to communicate with and have access to Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, to visit him in detention and to arrange for his legal representation, and thereby breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;

(6)        By fifteen votes to one

        Finds that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is under an obligation to inform Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav without further delay of his rights and to provide Indian consular officers access to him in accordance with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;

(7)        By fifteen votes to one

Finds that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to provide, by the means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Convention, taking account of paragraphs 139, 145 and 146 of this Judgment;

(8)        By fifteen votes to one

Declares that a continued stay of execution constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.”

                                    For the sake of brevity, it must be mentioned here that only one Judge of Pakistan who was the Judge ad hoc Jilani dissented and voted against but 15 Judges voted in favour and they include President Yusuf, Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cancado Trindade, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam and Iwasawa.

                                      To conclude, ICJ has rightly called Pakistan’s bluff in Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case. The military courts of Pakistan cannot be trusted. The trial has to be by a civilian court. Jadhav has to be provided consular access and legal aid. Pakistan’s bluff has been very rightly exposed especially in the last para 149 wherein it has pointed out 8 points on which Pakistan has grievously erred and where it has to mend its ways! Pakistan’s bluff thus stands truly exposed before the world much to Pakistan’s chagrin but we can’t help it as it has to blame its ownself for consistently denying what India rightfully demanded but like an irresponsible nation it kept on denying and now after being chastened by this ICJ’s latest decision vows that it would behave like a responsible nation! If it still does not behave then India has the option to again approach ICJ! Pakistan knows it all too well! So it must start behaving from now onwards and simultaneously stop bluffing the world!


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  26 Jul 2019     Views:717

Articles Updates

Bail and Punishment Provisions of NDPS matters...
05 Apr 2023     Views:315
The Legal Depth of Cryptocurrency....
14 May 2022     Views:1420
Have You Suffered Harm Due to a Cochlear Implant?...
13 May 2022     Views:1088
When is a Deposition Summary used?...
13 May 2022     Views:1178
Denied! 8 Most Common Reasons for Green Card Denia...
25 Feb 2022     Views:1572
International customary law – a study of the Ang...
20 Feb 2022     Views:3831
How to Have an Essay Written for Free?...
10 Feb 2022     Views:1255
How to maximise a law firm’s success with a virt...
28 Dec 2021     Views:1638
Helpful Math Website for Students - AssignMaths.co...
26 Nov 2021     Views:1708
The Upcoming Municipal Nominee Program of Canada...
29 Oct 2021     Views:1811
Assault with a Weapon: How To Get Your Charges Dro...
28 Oct 2021     Views:1320
Law School Personal Statement Tips for Winning Adm...
12 Oct 2021     Views:1445
Can an Employee on Maternity Leave be Terminated?...
05 Oct 2021     Views:954
OLD STATUTES MAKING A COMEBACK AMID VIRUS OUTBREAK...
04 May 2020     Views:3438
ARTICLE 141: DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT...
04 May 2020     Views:19236
Presumptions in Evidence Law...
04 May 2020     Views:6652
Unique use of Technology during covid-19 pandemic...
30 Apr 2020     Views:3052
45 days interim bail granted to under- trial priso...
29 Apr 2020     Views:2967
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE...
27 Apr 2020     Views:7214
Rights of the LGBTQI community- a long road ahead....
26 Apr 2020     Views:2732
Measures to protect women against domestic violenc...
26 Apr 2020     Views:2705
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)...
25 Apr 2020     Views:3272
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertificatio...
24 Apr 2020     Views:2335
Increase in Cyberbullying during COVID-19...
24 Apr 2020     Views:1055
DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATIONS...
24 Apr 2020     Views:1580
Doctrine of lifting of corporate veil...
23 Apr 2020     Views:1176
Meaning of Legal Pluralism...
23 Apr 2020     Views:964
Once a mortgage, always a mortgage...
23 Apr 2020     Views:44286
Euthanasia- Meaning and Legality in India...
23 Apr 2020     Views:853
Judicial activism and Judicial restraint...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1021
Concept of Insider Trading under Investment Law...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1194
Need for Legal Awareness...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1178
Is Extradition a Legal Duty of State? ...
22 Apr 2020     Views:3732
The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Traff...
22 Apr 2020     Views:812
Why Dependence On Criminal Law Is Not The Solution...
22 Apr 2020     Views:757
Uniform Civil code...
22 Apr 2020     Views:798
VETO POWER AND DOUBLE VETO POWER ...
20 Apr 2020     Views:20161
ABETMENT UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE...
20 Apr 2020     Views:5307
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 197...
20 Apr 2020     Views:2226
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL - CRITICAL ANALYSIS...
20 Apr 2020     Views:4450
LAWS AGAINST ACID ATTACK IN INDIA...
20 Apr 2020     Views:9500
Concept of conciliation...
19 Apr 2020     Views:2234
White collar crimes in India...
19 Apr 2020     Views:1816
No Law To Make Whatsapp Group Admins Liable For Me...
19 Apr 2020     Views:6005
Relationship between International Law and Municip...
18 Apr 2020     Views:51813
International Labour Organization (ILO)...
18 Apr 2020     Views:785
How is the Law arena affected by COVID-19?...
18 Apr 2020     Views:729
Motor Vehicle Insurance Law...
18 Apr 2020     Views:758
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) AND ITS IMPO...
18 Apr 2020     Views:910
ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS OF THE LOCKDOWN MUST BE PRESER...
18 Apr 2020     Views:865
Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction...
17 Apr 2020     Views:2411
JUSTIFYING SC ORDER THAT MANDATES FREE COVID-19 TE...
17 Apr 2020     Views:734
Evolution of the Nature and Scope of Article 12 of...
16 Apr 2020     Views:5025
Corruption laws in India ...
16 Apr 2020     Views:978
ADVERTISING LAWS IN INDIA...
16 Apr 2020     Views:1214
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons...
15 Apr 2020     Views:931
Business Laws in India...
15 Apr 2020     Views:2199
The Process of Passing an Ordinary Bill in the Par...
14 Apr 2020     Views:11069
International Committee of the Red Cross...
14 Apr 2020     Views:916
National Company Law Tribunal...
14 Apr 2020     Views:998
FOOD ADULTERATION...
13 Apr 2020     Views:2018
The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juv...
13 Apr 2020     Views:3163
Environmental Protection Act, 1986...
12 Apr 2020     Views:1563
IMPORTANCE OF PRECEDENTS ...
12 Apr 2020     Views:8701
MoHFW and ICMR hold a conflicting statement over C...
11 Apr 2020     Views:833
Introduction to Income Tax Act, 1961...
11 Apr 2020     Views:5100
DEMOCRACY IN INDIA...
10 Apr 2020     Views:1485
United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS)...
10 Apr 2020     Views:1394
An Overview of Juvenile Delinquency and the Juveni...
09 Apr 2020     Views:1717
How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Li...
09 Apr 2020     Views:24277
International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-Interna...
09 Apr 2020     Views:2532
The Concept of Bonded Labour under the Legal Syste...
09 Apr 2020     Views:881
Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?...
08 Apr 2020     Views:28650
What should be given primary importance, Human Rig...
08 Apr 2020     Views:931
Karl Marx: Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood ...
08 Apr 2020     Views:4294
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Disc...
07 Apr 2020     Views:962
Legal Rights of Students in India...
07 Apr 2020     Views:2722
International Covenant on Civil and Political...
06 Apr 2020     Views:811
Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India)...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1530
The Hart-Fuller debate in a Nutshell ...
06 Apr 2020     Views:16628
Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Cri...
06 Apr 2020     Views:690
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child...
06 Apr 2020     Views:762
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY DURING THE HEALTH CRI...
06 Apr 2020     Views:760
Traditional Knowledge : The Convention on Biologic...
06 Apr 2020     Views:767
Bailment...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1368
Monopolistic nature of Copyright Societies in Indi...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1078
Marital Rape...
05 Apr 2020     Views:704
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:677
Manual Scavenging ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:655
How serious can Online Abuse be?...
05 Apr 2020     Views:645
Cognizable and non cognizable offences...
05 Apr 2020     Views:5090
Legal Aid In India ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:746
Basic Structure Doctrine...
05 Apr 2020     Views:753
Medical Negligence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:636
Consumer Protection Act, 2019...
05 Apr 2020     Views:798
Legality of Cryptocurrency in India...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1040
Intimate Partner Violence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:683
CENTRE USES THE PRETENCE OF ‘FAKE NEWS’ TO SUP...
05 Apr 2020     Views:627
International Humanitarian Law...
05 Apr 2020     Views:708
What rights do a disabled person in India have? ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:895
Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
03 Apr 2020     Views:879
What is the National Security Act being slapped on...
03 Apr 2020     Views:631
False News- another epidemic?...
02 Apr 2020     Views:722
Commercial laws in India a Bird's-eye view...
02 Apr 2020     Views:6212
All About Suo Moto Proceedings...
02 Apr 2020     Views:749
Intellectual Property Rights...
02 Apr 2020     Views:784
Alternate Dispute Resolution...
02 Apr 2020     Views:705
Types of E-commerce Models ...
02 Apr 2020     Views:647
'Intermeddler' as a Legal Representative under the...
01 Apr 2020     Views:5486
Right to health- A fundamental right...
31 Mar 2020     Views:748
What is a Green Bond? ...
31 Mar 2020     Views:670
Defamation...
31 Mar 2020     Views:719
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL LOCKDOWN...
30 Mar 2020     Views:823
Positive and Negative Impacts of the US-China Trad...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1734
Public Heath(Covid-19) Rules, 2020...
29 Mar 2020     Views:623
Opinion | Migration and the Mockery of Lockdown- I...
29 Mar 2020     Views:718
Female Genital Mutilation- Violation of Human Righ...
29 Mar 2020     Views:791
Supreme Court’s judgement on Shreya Singhal v. U...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1271
International Court of Justice...
28 Mar 2020     Views:768
Feminist Jurisprudence...
27 Mar 2020     Views:932
IP Protection and Diffusion of Environmentally Sou...
27 Mar 2020     Views:945
Covid-19 fostered Racism ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:696
Mercy Petition: The Process ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1415
WTO Work Programme on E-Commerce ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:721
Comparison between Section 144 of CrPC, lockdown a...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1217
Prison reforms...
26 Mar 2020     Views:750
How far has the LGBTQI community come?...
26 Mar 2020     Views:676
Public Interest Litigation...
26 Mar 2020     Views:816
The Right to information Act- Still a right or not...
25 Mar 2020     Views:978
Legalization of Marijuana...
25 Mar 2020     Views:744
Significance of AB PM-JAY in the light of COVID-19...
25 Mar 2020     Views:684
The History of Magna Carta...
25 Mar 2020     Views:1420
Introduction to Child Rights in India...
25 Mar 2020     Views:4122
CENTRE CANNOT DECLARE AN ORGANISATION POLITICAL: ...
06 Mar 2020     Views:3037
A DECISION MADE BY SC ON AYODHYA VERDICT...
29 Jan 2020     Views:1080
RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER IN INDIA...
29 Jan 2020     Views:1286
MARITAL RAPE - A NON CRIMINALIZED CRIME IN INDIA...
24 Jan 2020     Views:1246
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT ...
22 Jan 2020     Views:1137
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...
21 Jan 2020     Views:1310
Hyderabad Encounter- Human Rights Violation or Jus...
18 Jan 2020     Views:1781
NOTE ON NIRBHAY CASE CONVICTS...
17 Jan 2020     Views:1240
NOTE ON ARTICLE 370...
17 Jan 2020     Views:1163
Rape and Indian laws ...
13 Jan 2020     Views:1693
An overview on Drugs Law...
13 Jan 2020     Views:1287
Mob Lynching: Role of Politics and approach of Jud...
08 Jan 2020     Views:3953
Trademarks: Spectrum of Distinctiveness and Indian...
06 Jan 2020     Views:4614
Women Prisoners ...
23 Dec 2019     Views:1332
Child Care Institutions and its Judicial Interpret...
23 Dec 2019     Views:1365
Smart Contracts and Their Relevance in The Legal P...
19 Dec 2019     Views:1134
Government Vs Opposition on the Citizenship Amendm...
12 Dec 2019     Views:1391
Condition Of Lady Advocates Vulnerable: Lawyer App...
11 Dec 2019     Views:1926
Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: Ho...
10 Dec 2019     Views:31774
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUDICIAL OVER-REACH: TRANSITIO...
10 Dec 2019     Views:2814
Due Process Of Law For Rapists Must Speed Up Now...
10 Dec 2019     Views:1026
Human Rights Of Women Must Also Be Respected...
09 Dec 2019     Views:1088
Speedy Capital Punishment For Rapists Must Be Ensu...
08 Dec 2019     Views:1000
Why Only One Dhananjoy Chatterjee Hanged Till Now?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:1385
Why No Death Penalty For Gang Rape In India?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:881
Rape Convicts Must Be Hanged At The Earliest From ...
05 Dec 2019     Views:819
No Mercy Petition And No Life Term Ever For Gang R...
02 Dec 2019     Views:1076
Section 207 CrPC: Magistrate Cannot Withhold Any D...
02 Dec 2019     Views:2158
UP Bar Council Chairman Harishankar Singh Openly C...
17 Nov 2019     Views:1438
AN UNDERSTANDING OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ART 3...
13 Nov 2019     Views:2765
COOKING UP A LEGALLY PROTECTED MEAL: A study on IP...
13 Nov 2019     Views:1188
Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde To Be The New CJI From...
31 Oct 2019     Views:1521
UK Supreme Court Declares Prorogation Of Parliamen...
29 Sep 2019     Views:895
Right To Access Internet Is Part Of Right To Priva...
23 Sep 2019     Views:991
No Attempt Made To Frame Uniform Civil Code Despit...
19 Sep 2019     Views:948
A Legal Giant Named Ram Jethmalani Finally Passes ...
09 Sep 2019     Views:752
Judicial Service – HC Can’t Modify/Relax Instr...
02 Sep 2019     Views:688
Government Notifies Strict Provisions Of Motor Veh...
31 Aug 2019     Views:767
NDPS: Reverse Burden Of Proof Does Not Absolve Pro...
30 Aug 2019     Views:1499
Institutional Independence, Financial Autonomy Int...
28 Aug 2019     Views:727
A Legal Luminary And A Political Stalwart Passes A...
25 Aug 2019     Views:778
Allahabad HC Bans DJs And Passes Directions For Re...
24 Aug 2019     Views:667
Delhi HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To P Chidambara...
23 Aug 2019     Views:894
Chidambaram Getting No Respite From Courts...
23 Aug 2019     Views:641
Domestic Violence And Dowry Accused Set Free By Th...
22 Aug 2019     Views:3384
Bombsy HC: Treat every citizen with dignity...
20 Aug 2019     Views:3389
Integration Of J&K With India Is Now Full And Fina...
20 Aug 2019     Views:1227
Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Gr...
18 Aug 2019     Views:851
Judge Can Recuse From A Case At His Own Volition, ...
17 Aug 2019     Views:942
Don't politicize demolition of temples: SC...
16 Aug 2019     Views:3387
Madras Christian College - female students sexuall...
16 Aug 2019     Views:3230
Charged for employing triple talaq...
16 Aug 2019     Views:1404
Earlier Convicted now Acquitted - Lack of Conclusi...
15 Aug 2019     Views:1328
MACAD Scheme to be enforced in Tamil Nadu - 1st Oc...
15 Aug 2019     Views:1308
Filing Of Criminal Complaint For Settling Civil Di...
15 Aug 2019     Views:978
End Discrimination: Equalize legal age of Marriage...
14 Aug 2019     Views:798
Madras HC issues directions upon Officers to check...
14 Aug 2019     Views:780
BOMBAY HC to Civic Bodies: "Own up to your respons...
14 Aug 2019     Views:762
Infringement of Registered TM "Vistara" - Threat t...
13 Aug 2019     Views:1020
US Citizen approaches Bombay High Court After Bein...
13 Aug 2019     Views:933
Normalcy need not be restored in J&K instantly : S...
13 Aug 2019     Views:807
Prohibitory Steps taken against Students for Consu...
13 Aug 2019     Views:847
Basic Amenities to Traffic Personnel ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:692
Madras HC upholds the appointment notification of ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:838
Plea against E-pharmacies struck down by Bombay HC...
12 Aug 2019     Views:778
Parliament Rightly Makes Triple Talaq Criminal But...
12 Aug 2019     Views:713
No Tax Deduction from Motor Accident Compensation ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:780
Delhi HC: Plant 50 Trees, Quash Criminal Proceedin...
11 Aug 2019     Views:710
Iyal Isai Nataka Mandram should abide by the time ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:985
Transitory Committee to be formed for Indian Arche...
11 Aug 2019     Views:734
Outlawing Of Triple Talaq Is Highly Commendable...
11 Aug 2019     Views:765
Daring Resolve Taken By Centre On Jammu And Kashmi...
10 Aug 2019     Views:680
M Kavitha’s suspension to be reviewed...
09 Aug 2019     Views:991
SC: Adverse Possession owing to Title over Propert...
09 Aug 2019     Views:789
Regulation of Online streaming contents out of the...
09 Aug 2019     Views:810
Constitution Cannot Be Above Country Come What May...
09 Aug 2019     Views:737
Ocean waves to be our new energy source...
08 Aug 2019     Views:805
Delhi HC: Simple language to be incorporated in FI...
08 Aug 2019     Views:1018
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ASKED THE GOVERNMENT T...
08 Aug 2019     Views:772
Victim Has A Right To Assist The Court In A Trial ...
08 Aug 2019     Views:2150
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
07 Aug 2019     Views:921
SC Denies Permission to Conduct DNA Tests...
07 Aug 2019     Views:846
Whatsapp's fight against interference with User-Pr...
07 Aug 2019     Views:747
Evidence Of A Solitary Witness In A Criminal Trial...
07 Aug 2019     Views:792
High Court of Karnataka set aside the retirement o...
07 Aug 2019     Views:924
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
06 Aug 2019     Views:857
History-sheeter kidnaps and rapes a College Studen...
06 Aug 2019     Views:850
No Room For Sympathy While Sentencing Terror Convi...
06 Aug 2019     Views:643
Rejected Plea: Declaration of Vande Mataram as Nat...
05 Aug 2019     Views:1029
Madras HC corrects the computation error of Motor ...
05 Aug 2019     Views:749
Fundamental Right To Privacy Not Absolute And Must...
05 Aug 2019     Views:976
Diocese of Tanjore Society School gets relief from...
04 Aug 2019     Views:826
THE TEMPLES IN KARNATAKA NO MORE BE GOVERNED UNDER...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1028
Triple Talaq legislation is challenged in the Delh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:751
Special Olympics International Football Championsh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:750
Concession to be given to disabled persons appeari...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1244
Bombay High Court Hears Dowry Case Involving A Civ...
03 Aug 2019     Views:886
Karnataka High Court on the condition of Roads...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1087
SC ORDERS DEATH PENALTY IN COIMBATORE GANG-RAPE CA...
02 Aug 2019     Views:795
RBI Changes Features Of New Currency Notes. Bombay...
02 Aug 2019     Views:757
Interest Of Victim And Society At Large Must Also ...
02 Aug 2019     Views:736
Abolition of Colonial Decorum in Courts...
01 Aug 2019     Views:4874
Punjab & Haryana HC Bans Use Of Loudspeakers Witho...
31 Jul 2019     Views:1236
ICJ Has Rightly Called Pakistan’s Bluff In Jadha...
26 Jul 2019     Views:717
Review And Reconsider Conviction And Sentencing Of...
22 Jul 2019     Views:732
Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against ...
21 Jul 2019     Views:847
Biggest Slap By ICJ Directly Right On The Face Of ...
19 Jul 2019     Views:637
Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 50,000 Cost On Woman For Fals...
17 Jul 2019     Views:778
Non-Appointment Of Judges Affects Speedy Justice: ...
16 Jul 2019     Views:732
Right To Get Anticipatory Bail Is Not Any Fundamen...
14 Jul 2019     Views:1088
Plea For Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Before...
13 Jul 2019     Views:1309
Divorce Cannot Be Granted Only On Ground Of Irretr...
11 Jul 2019     Views:715
Right To Shelter A Fundamental Right; State Has Co...
08 Jul 2019     Views:765
HC Cannot Reverse Acquittal Without Affording Oppo...
06 Jul 2019     Views:644
Centre Is Legally Empowered To Create A High Court...
05 Jul 2019     Views:1114
Centre Must Now Immediately Order Creation Of HC B...
03 Jul 2019     Views:640
UAPA: SC Dismisses PFI Leader’s Plea Seeking Dis...
02 Jul 2019     Views:867
How To Record The Evidence Of Deaf And Dumb Rape V...
01 Jul 2019     Views:1377
Ban Advocates From Carrying Weapons Inside Court P...
26 Jun 2019     Views:1634
Enact Strict Law To Ensure Personal Safety Of Doct...
26 Jun 2019     Views:1504
Mere Aggressive Behaviour Of Wife Not A Ground Of ...
26 Jun 2019     Views:1737
Court Cannot Destroy Faith & Beliefs Of People: Ma...
07 Jun 2019     Views:696
Insult Of Soldier In Name Of Law Is Most Disgracef...
07 Jun 2019     Views:784
Courts Cannot Decide Eligibility And Essential Qua...
20 May 2019     Views:2350
SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPN...
20 May 2019     Views:1740
My Unflinching Faith In CJI Stands Fully Vindicate...
20 May 2019     Views:1041
Solitary Confinement Of Death Convict Prior To Rej...
20 May 2019     Views:1439
Section 498A & 306 IPC: Incidents Which Happened M...
20 May 2019     Views:4433
Why Should UP Have Least High Court Benches In Ind...
20 May 2019     Views:770
Successive Bail Applications Should Be Placed Befo...
20 May 2019     Views:6800
“Drop This Episode From Your Minds And Gossips...
20 May 2019     Views:780
Is The Criticism Of In-House Procedure Justified?...
20 May 2019     Views:927
Mere Pendency Of Civil Case Between Complainant An...
20 May 2019     Views:786
Section 482 CrPC: HC Should Assign Reasons As To W...
20 May 2019     Views:2001
Delhi High Court Directs Government To Set Up 18 F...
20 May 2019     Views:757
No New Appointments To Be Made From In-Service Can...
18 May 2019     Views:761
Only Advocates Can Plead And Argue On Behalf Of Li...
09 Apr 2019     Views:2353
Nations Must Make Gun Laws More Stricter...
04 Apr 2019     Views:2931
SC Designates 37 Lawyers As Senior Advocates...
04 Apr 2019     Views:4085
Adding Additional Accused: To Invoke Section 319 C...
04 Apr 2019     Views:4636
SC Sets Aside Life Ban Imposed On Cricketer Sreesa...
04 Apr 2019     Views:973
P&H HC Directs Protection Of Honest Officers While...
04 Apr 2019     Views:837
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Impri...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1433
Islamabad High Court Rejects Plea Against Release ...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1460
Lawyers Resort To Seek Unnecessary Adjournments Am...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1530
Even Poem Can Help Save A Death Convict From Gallo...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1433
Educated Woman Supposed To Be Fully Aware Of Conse...
19 Mar 2019     Views:817
Jammu and Kashmir HC Upholds PM’s Employment Pac...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1109
Magistrate Shall Specify Whether Sentences Awarded...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1753
Mere Inability To Repay Loan Does Not Constitute C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:2051
Inability To Establish Motive In A Case Of Circums...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1858
Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Slew Of Directions To C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:2144
Court Has to Confine Itself To The Four Corners Of...
23 Feb 2019     Views:929
Long Pendency Amounts To A Special Reason For Impo...
23 Feb 2019     Views:882
Successive Applications For Recalling Witnesses Sh...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1969
Lieutenant General (Rtd) Cannot Be Tried In A Gene...
06 Feb 2019     Views:1632
Autonomy Of the Bar Cannot Be Taken Over By The Co...
05 Feb 2019     Views:2330
Casual Act Of Possession Over Property Does Not Co...
04 Feb 2019     Views:1535
No Authority Can Claim Privilege Not To Comply Wit...
04 Feb 2019     Views:1706
Death Sentence Only When The Alternative Option Is...
04 Feb 2019     Views:1922
SC Imposes Rs 5 Crore Penalty On A Medical College...
28 Jan 2019     Views:1211
A Judicial Officer Is Not An Ordinary Government S...
25 Jan 2019     Views:1380
Rape And Murder Of 8 Year Old Girl: SC Commutes De...
23 Jan 2019     Views:1463
Mere Allegations Of Harassment Without Proximate P...
23 Jan 2019     Views:1941
Legal Article Why Should They Speak Lies: Decease...
23 Jan 2019     Views:1008
Can a Economic offender can escape by surrendering...
22 Jan 2019     Views:822
NCW is a Lame Duck or Legal Guardian for women...
22 Jan 2019     Views:773
Mutual Consent Divorce Procedure in Chennai Family...
21 Jan 2019     Views:4169
Quick Divorce in India...
21 Jan 2019     Views:829
4 Important things to file Divorce in Chennai...
21 Jan 2019     Views:940
How to get Divorce for Muslim Men ...
21 Jan 2019     Views:10082
Offences Under Section 307 IPC Can’t Be Quashed ...
17 Jan 2019     Views:2433
Suspicion, Howsoever Grave, Can’t Substitute Pro...
17 Jan 2019     Views:845
Delhi HC Rejects AJL's Plea Against Centre's Order...
03 Jan 2019     Views:1663
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Delhi HC Awards Life Term To...
03 Jan 2019     Views:1471
SC Dismisses Petitions Seeking Probe Into Rafale D...
20 Dec 2018     Views:1734
Executive Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Regis...
20 Dec 2018     Views:2220
Why Lawyers Of West UP Are Compelled To Strike Fre...
20 Dec 2018     Views:1047
recheck...
19 Dec 2018     Views:1284
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots – Delhi HC Upholds Convicti...
12 Dec 2018     Views:1258
Why Lawless West UP Has No High Court Bench?...
11 Dec 2018     Views:1286
Bombay HC Quashes Government Resolution Making It ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1600
SLP Against Death Sentence Shall Not Be Dismissed ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1605
SC Allows Live-Streaming Of Public Proceedings In ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1439
Sexual Offenders Registry For Law Enforcement Agen...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1404
Delhi HC Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonme...
26 Nov 2018     Views:862
Men Too Have Right Not To Be Defamed And Denounced...
26 Nov 2018     Views:774
Courts Have To Adequately Consider Defence Of The ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:852
CJI Ranjan Gogoi Demonstrates His Firm Resolve And...
26 Nov 2018     Views:775
SC Issues Directions On Examination Of Witnesses I...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1595
Aadhaar Held Mandatory For Government Subsidies An...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1070
Legal Article Now Bar Council ID Card Is Valid Id...
01 Nov 2018     Views:1791
SC Sets Deadline On Sale Of BS-IV Vehicles; Says H...
01 Nov 2018     Views:1733
Devotion Cannot Be Subjected To Gender Discriminat...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2918
There Cannot Be Any Mechanical Denial Of Appointme...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2046
Rights Of Accused Far Outweigh That Of Victims, Ne...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1023
SC Strikes Down 158 Year Old Adultery Law Under Se...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1673
Extra-Judicial Confession Of Accused Need Not In A...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1225
Leaders Of Outfits Calling For Mob Violence Liable...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1017
Section 377 IPC Decriminalised Partially By Supre...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1329
New CJI Ranjan Gogoi Is Determined To Ensure Sweep...
23 Oct 2018     Views:1450
Court Must Not Go Deep Into The Matter While Consi...
26 Sep 2018     Views:1615
Reputation Of An Individual Is An Insegregable Fac...
26 Sep 2018     Views:2037
Sec. 498A IPC: Only HC Can Quash Cases On Settleme...
18 Sep 2018     Views:3239
Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Rape Convict, Mother To...
17 Sep 2018     Views:1789
Bombay HC Imposes Cost Of Rs 50K On Petitioner Fir...
17 Sep 2018     Views:1058
Uttarakhand HC Dismisses “Contempt Petition” A...
14 Sep 2018     Views:1164
SC Stresses On Need To Develop And Recognize ‘De...
08 Sep 2018     Views:1107
Mirchpur Dalit Killings: “Atrocities Against SCs...
08 Sep 2018     Views:1222
SC Upholds Pan India Reservation Rule in Delhi; Bu...
03 Sep 2018     Views:1490
NDPS Bail Conditions Discriminatory, Irrational An...
31 Aug 2018     Views:2274
People Without A Degree Performing Surgeries: Utta...
28 Aug 2018     Views:1079
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions For Conserving ...
28 Aug 2018     Views:1669
12 Year Old Girl’s Rape And Murder: Constitute P...
28 Aug 2018     Views:1282
MP HC To Debar Members/Office Bearers Of Bar Counc...
22 Aug 2018     Views:1028
Special Squad, Police Patrolling Every 24 Hours To...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1129
NRC Being Prepared Under Supreme Court’s Watch I...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1120
Victims Of Crime Can Seek Cancellation Of Bail: MP...
20 Aug 2018     Views:1268
Delhi HC Strikes Down Provisions In Law That Crimi...
13 Aug 2018     Views:1308
Delhi HC Quashes Govt Notification Revising Minimu...
09 Aug 2018     Views:1165
Poorest Of Poor Cannot Go To Private Hospitals: Ut...
07 Aug 2018     Views:1595
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Just Keep Strikin...
04 Aug 2018     Views:1500
Courts Must See That The Public Doesn’t Lose Con...
04 Aug 2018     Views:1167
UK Tier 1 Entrepreneur Visa: Overview from Experts...
31 Jul 2018     Views:1063
Enact Law For Safety Of Soldiers Of Jammu And Kash...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1132
SC Advocates Creating A Special Law Against Lynchi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2299
Matrimonial Discord Can’t Be Considered As Reaso...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2032
Uttarakhand HC Recommends Govt To Enact Legislatio...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2386
High Court Priests Cannot Refuse To Perform Religi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1595
Uttarakhand High Court Passes String Of Directions...
23 Jul 2018     Views:963
SC Finally Decides Master Of Roster Case...
23 Jul 2018     Views:900
Stone Pelters And Terrorists Have No Right To Life...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1123
Remove Designations Like Police, HC, Journalist, A...
23 Jul 2018     Views:998
Why Centre is Providing Security For Separatists B...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1141
Farmer Suicide Due To Bankruptcy Or Indebtedness: ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:3437
Every Indian Should Salute Brave Soldier Aurangzeb...
05 Jul 2018     Views:2203
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions To Curb Drug Pedd...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1778
Have A Functional National Law University Within 3...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1467
Establish Regional Bench Of AFT In The State Withi...
05 Jul 2018     Views:886
Cancel Licences of Drivers Using Cell Phones; Helm...
05 Jul 2018     Views:806
Uttarakhand High Court Puts Restrictions On Noise ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:879
Supreme Court To Look Into Validity Of Amended Law...
05 Jul 2018     Views:904
Mysterious Deaths, Rapes, Malnutrition, Unsanitary...
29 Jun 2018     Views:1889
No Politics Please Over Plan To Assassinate PM Mod...
11 Jun 2018     Views:1330
Free Mentally Ill Children And Formulate Policies ...
11 Jun 2018     Views:1736
Landmark Ruling By Uttarakhand HC On Solitary Conf...
07 Jun 2018     Views:2101
Right Of Adult Couple To Live Together Without Mar...
06 Jun 2018     Views:1466
Why BJP Will Be Wiped Out In West UP And UP?...
06 Jun 2018     Views:1607
Why UP Has Just One High Court Bench And West UP N...
05 Jun 2018     Views:1065
Women Governed By Muslim Personal Law Can Invoke P...
04 Jun 2018     Views:905
Why Is BJP Not Creating More Benches In UP?...
01 Jun 2018     Views:902
Probation Period To Count For New Civil Servants B...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2426
SC Women Lawyers Association Seeks Chemical Castra...
01 Jun 2018     Views:877
SC Finally Steps In To Expedite POCSO Cases...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1801
UP Former CMs Can’t Stay In Govt Bungalows: SC...
01 Jun 2018     Views:830
Make BCCI A Public Body: Law Panel...
01 Jun 2018     Views:920
Self-Styled Godman Asaram Awarded Life Until Death...
01 Jun 2018     Views:941
Why Cases Withdrawn Against Stone Pelters In Kashm...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1023
A High Court Bench For West UP In Meerut Is Impera...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1126
People Of Karnataka Should Worship Congress...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1145
Delhi HC Upholds Life Term To Seven Policemen...
19 Mar 2018     Views:902
Finance Act-2018 And Customs Act-1962 (Amendments)...
28 Feb 2018     Views:944
Why No Death Or Life Term For Corruption?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:815
Will Electoral Bonds Usher In Transparency?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:803
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Keep Striking?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:875
Finance Act 2018 and Customs Act 1962...
18 Feb 2018     Views:1141
Why Has Stone Pelting Been Legalised In Kashmir?...
12 Feb 2018     Views:880
Shopian Firing: Major's Dad Moving SC For Quashing...
12 Feb 2018     Views:846
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Kill Stone Pelt...
12 Feb 2018     Views:1986
Attack On Lawyers: Delhi HC Issues Notice To Delhi...
10 Feb 2018     Views:886
Female Foeticide Must Be Punished Most Strictly...
10 Feb 2018     Views:859
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Act In Self Def...
10 Feb 2018     Views:810
New Consumer Protection Bill 2018 Will Entail More...
10 Feb 2018     Views:814
CJI Brings Out A Roster To Allot Cases...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1363
Five Year Jail Term For Lalu In Third Fodder Scam ...
10 Feb 2018     Views:899
SC Quashes All The 88 Mining Leases In Goa...
10 Feb 2018     Views:895
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 (PMLA-20...
07 Feb 2018     Views:798
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 Amended ...
04 Feb 2018     Views:1205
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 --U/S 45(...
03 Feb 2018     Views:1104
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 (P...
16 Jan 2018     Views:884
humanity...
13 Jan 2018     Views:811
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 PMLA...
13 Jan 2018     Views:841
Right to Know...
05 Jan 2018     Views:1155
A STUDY OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS ON INCOME TAX RELATI...
29 Dec 2017     Views:1387
Enviornment protection is for saving universe...
28 Dec 2017     Views:847
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND STATUS OF SECTION 377, IPC, 1...
26 Dec 2017     Views:997
PROBLEMS WITHIN THE EXISTING POLICE SYSTEM...
26 Dec 2017     Views:870
LEGALITY : LEGALITY OF MARITAL RAPE...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1573
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DIRECTION FOR MANDATORY AADHA...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1019
THE PARADOX OF PLEA BARGAINING...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1556
JOURNEY OF EVMs AMIDST CONTROVERSIES ...
26 Dec 2017     Views:928
UIDAI suspends Airtel, Airtel Payments and Banks e...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1205
2G Scam : The 2G Scam and much more...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1383
Kerala teen surveillance case: Invasion of Privacy...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1034
Motherhood or Employment- the judicial perspective...
26 Dec 2017     Views:898

Most Read Articles

  • Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law
    On 18 Apr 2020    Views:51813
  • Once a mortgage, always a mortgage
    On 23 Apr 2020    Views:44286
  • Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: How it has been adopted in India
    On 10 Dec 2019    Views:31774
  • Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?
    On 08 Apr 2020    Views:28650
  • How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Liability?
    On 09 Apr 2020    Views:24277
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

Allow Cookies!

By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1127 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.