The fortune of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court for alleged surveillance, prevailed uncertain as the International Court of Justice on Monday deferred its ruling on India’s appeal to stop his execution. Earlier, the International Court of Justice, which has lingered the death sentence of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav by Pakistan, will include public hearings in the case.

The United Nations greatest court in the Hague heard arguments by both factions, and its president Ronny Abraham said the 12-judge tribunal would deliver its decision on whether to grant an emergency stay of execution “as soon as feasible” on a date that would be communicated to the two parties.

Pakistan states Jadhav, 46, was jailed in March last year in the restive Balochistan province. In April, a military court convicted him to death for an alleged relationship with spying and subversive activities. India contended he was seized from the Iranian port of Chabahar and his trial was a “farce.”


Pakistan had deliberately refused consular way despite being under an international responsibility to do so.

India debated during the hearing in the Dutch capital that Pakistan had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by not allowing consular access to Jadhav even after 16 requests were made.

Pakistan told in its presentation that consular access could not be awarded as Jadhav was a “terrorist” and that India had “invoked the jurisdiction of this court inappropriately.” UK-based lawyer Khawar Qureshi, who arrived in Pakistan, said a 2008 bilateral agreement allows both countries to decide on consular access in matters concerning “political or security” issues.

Qureshi also disputed that there was “no urgency” in the matter while countering India’s contention that it trembled Jadhav could be executed even before the hearing at the ICJ is completed.

The Pakistani side submitted a setback when the ICJ turned down its request to play the purported video of Jadhav at the hearing. A video wall was set up by the Pakistani side, but the court confirmed the Indian team’s objection to any playback.

Former solicitor officer Harish Salve, India’s lead attorney, told a TV news channel If confessional want to show something and it helps your case if you are refused that right, it’s a setback. So, in that sense, yeah. They required to show it, and that opportunity was taken away. “They did not allow it. We protested, and the court felt it was not appropriate,” he added.

After India had proposed the ICJ earlier this month, the World Court’s president wrote to Pakistan urging it to take no action that could affect the hearing effectively a move to prevent the death sentence being carried out.

Directing the charge for India, Deepak Mittal, joint secretary on the Pakistan desk of the external affairs ministry, said that Pakistan had deliberately denied consular access despite being under an international responsibility to do so. This was a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Mittal said,

“India holds that the farcical nature of proceedings and unjust trial by a Pakistani military court in flagrant violation of the rights of consular access has led to a grave miscarriage of justice,”

Salve made out evidence that the World Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate in the case. Salve converged on precedents of the World Court and cited examples of Germany versus the US and Mexico versus the US wherein the ICJ had happened and passed temporary orders restraining governments from executing convicts.

“The performance of the death sentence cannot be done while this court is hearing the appeal. Else, it will be a contravention of the Vienna Convention,” Salve said. “I request the ICJ to ensure that Jadhav is not executed, Pakistan records to this court that the action (of not executing him) is taken and that no effort is taken that might prejudice the rights of India in the matter of Jadhav,” he added.

Click Here For Latest Politics News

Pakistani legislator Mohammad Faisal accused India of using the ICJ as a stage for political theater. He bestowed the tribunal a copy of an Indian passport he alleged Jadhav was leading at the time of his arrest, which bore the name Hussein Mubarak Patel. Faisal declared, was an “obvious indication of covert and illegal activity.” He joined Jadhav has confessed to having been sent by India to wage terror on the innocuous civilians and infrastructure of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s lawyer Khawar Qureshi said,

“India requested the jurisdiction of this court improperly,”  “This court exists to ensure that states engage in peaceful resolution of disputes. This court does not are in place to time-wasting and political grandstanding.”

The ICJ decides disputes between nations and its decisions are final and binding. But it has no averages to enforce its rulings, and they have sometimes been ignored. In a related dispute involving the Vienna Convention in 1999, the ICJ directed the US not to execute a German national who did not get consular access, but the man was killed.