ICJ to consider Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case

Jurisdiction of ICJ

International Court of Justice (ICJ) derives its jurisdiction from a voluntary declaration by each State that accepts its jurisdiction. Islamic Republic of Pakistan has filed a fresh declaration submitting to the jurisdiction of ICJ on March 29, 2017.
ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was established by the United Nations Charter, signed in 1945 at San Francisco (United States), and began work in 1946 in the Peace Palace, The Hague (Netherlands).

The Court, which is composed of 15 judges, has a dual role: in accordance with international law, settling legal disputes between States submitted to it by them and giving advisory opinions on legal matters referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

Only States are eligible to appear before the Court in contentious cases. At present, this basically means the 192 United Nations Member States.

The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity. It cannot provide them with legal counselling or help them in their dealings with the authorities of any State whatever.

However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States.

Background of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case

Pakistan allegedly arrested, detained, tried, convicted and sentenced to death an Indian National Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, and he is currently under a death sentence handed out by a Military Court Martial without giving him consular access which is mandatory under Article 36 of Vienna Convention.
On 8 May 2017, India to protect Kulbhush Jadhav filed a petition before ICJ  and an application for interim measures.  ICJ had granted interim protection and has fixed today the hearing on main petition.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Crocodile tears for Yakub Memon for publicity. 

Bad choices are sometimes more than mere mistakes.

Yakub Memon was hanged yesterday, 30th July 2015. He was found guilty of conspiracy of terrorist bomb attack killing 257 people and injuring over 700 people in Bombay in 1993.  His second petition to Supreme Court was dismissed during the day. However certain legal and political intelligentsia decided that it would be in ‘public interest’ to challenge the hanging of Yakub. This public interest petition was heard during the night by Supreme Court and rejected at 3.00AM on 30th July 2015. First a little background about public interest litigation.

Public interest litigation. 

Public interest litigation in India is similar to Class action suits in USA except that in India only High Court and Supreme Court have exercised it in writ jurisdiction.

A litigation can only be started by a person aggrieved. That is the law. If a cause of action is personal i.e. not relating to estate, it dies with claimant/plaintiff/petitioner. Public Interest Litigation is an exception in which a person can approach the court to seek redress on behalf of another person or class of persons if such person(s) are underprivileged or in disability.

Continue reading

Yakub Memon and Brady Violation

Death sentence to a terrorist.

Yakub Memon is a convicted terrorist (for killing 257 people and injuring three times more) and is scheduled to be hanged on 30 July 2015, since his last petition to Supreme Court of India, by way of curative petition has been dismissed. It is not surprising because by very nature remedy of curative petition is to correct or cure a mistake or injustice. However what is appalling is discovery of new facts as revealed by a former intelligence officer. According to these revelations (published in indian express newspaper) Memon is a flipper. He was in conspiracy with Pakistan, for terrorist attack but for the sake of his family’s safety he agreed to flip. Continue reading