It certainly was a
time of happiness and great relief when the UN's top court on Thursday announced its
ruling on an urgent bid by India to stop Pakistan from executing a death
sentence for Kulbushan Jadhav, one of its nationals convicted of spying and
subversive activities in Pakistan. Rejecting Pakistan's argument that the court
did not have jurisdiction in the matter, the court reasoned it could hear the
case because it involved, on the face of it, an alleged violation of one of the
clauses of the Vienna Convention, which both Pakistan and India ascribe to and
whose interpretation falls under its purview.
"[Meanwhile]
Pakistan should take all measures to ensure that Mr Jadhav is not executed till
the final decision of this court," the court said. The court also said
Pakistan should inform it of all measures taken in implementation of the order.
The president of the court, Ronny Abraham, read out the decision.
Good
planning and secrecy - that's what Harish Salve said gave India the edge over
Pakistan at the International Court of Justice. Two days after the former Solicitor
General's masterful presentation of the case at The Hague, the world court
ruled in India's favour, asking Pakistan to hold off the execution of Mr Jadhav
till it reached its final verdict. Mr Salve, who is being congratulated since
by everyone, from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to netizens on Twitter, told
NDTV that it was a "huge decision" for the government to move the
International Court, in which External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj "led
from the front". "If we had made a false start, we would have been
where Pakistan is today," Mr Salve said. Talking of the secrecy with which
everything was planned, he said, "No emails were sent, everything was kept
quiet, that's how we had a little advantage when we moved the court".
Pakistani media reports in the afternath of
the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) verdict in the Kulbhushan Jadhav
death sentence case have focussed on Pakistan government’s underpreparedness
and the court’s jurisdiction. There is an overwhelming unanimity that Pakistan
shouldn’t have gone to the ICJ in the first place. Many media reports state that they regret
they way the case was mishandled.
Is that
an ordinary thing ? – though legal luminaries would know it better, it sounds
atrocious for the commoner .. .. .. that this Pak lawyer had been preferred to defend Indian
interest during UPA regime. In a
shocking revelation, WION News has found that UPA government had hired
Pak-origin UK lawyer Khawar Qureshi in 2004. He was reportedly recommended by
law firm Fox Mandal for the Dabhol case.
Qureshi recently
argued against India at the ICJ where he called India’s claims about Kulbhushan
Jadhav ‘far-fetched’. The report states
that the Congress-led UPA government had
hired Khawar to represent India in the Dabhol power project case. In that
particular case, Enron had made a US $ 6 billion dollar (5 billion pounds)
claim against the government of India, the case went to arbitration. In 2004,
when Congress-led UPA came to power, they changed the entire legal team and
appointed Khawar Qureshi to appear on behalf of the Indian government. The other side was represented by New York law
firm Simpson Thacher and Barlett.
The UPA government had hired Qureshi in Dabhol
case overlooking Indian lawyers. Defending the decision, Congress national
spokesperson Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi said today that Qureshi is an independent
barrister and Indian lawyers are also engaged by Pakistan. Singhvi said that
the entire matter is a non-issue.
In the
present case, according to a Geo News report, Khawar Qureshi, the lawyer
representing Pakistan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), blamed the Indian government for the 'baseless
propaganda' surrounding the case fee he charged, something that became a
rallying point for many on the social media to poke fun at him. What
exacerbated his misery was the obvious comparison with Harish Salve, the Indian
counsel in the case, who took just Re 1 as his court fee, a symbolism of his
commitment to his motherland. The lawyer, who has been blamed by many experts
and politicians in Pakistan for not preparing well for the case and leaving
many loopholes in his arguments, told Geo News that "references to his
fees were complete lies fabricated by Indian Twitterati and Indian nationals
behind such baseless propaganda may have government backing".
The ICJ decision
yesterday, staying execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav by Pakistan till the case was
underway in the UN court, saw a rush of tweets on how a highly paid but
ill-prepared Pak lawyer could not stand the legal wisdom of Harish Salve who
charged just Re 1. The speculation on Twitter about his fees was largely based
on media reports from Pakistan that quoted his fees for the case at around
5,00,000 British Pound, i.e., a whopping 7 crore in Pak currency and around
4.25 crore in Indian currency. So, even
if Qureshi says that "his fees were not even 10 per cent of what the
Indian propaganda suggests" and even if he justifies the amount he charged
by saying he "cancelled another professional commitment with another
government to travel to Pakistan urgently", he would always find it
difficult to justify even this reduced gap, i.e., at 10 per cent of the claims
being made, between Harish Salve's Re 1 winning gesture to his Rs. 42.5 lakh
case fee, especially when he wasted 40 minutes of the 90 minutes given to his
team to present its side of the arguments. To add to Qureshi's misery, Indian
team under the leadership of Salve used its full 90 minutes.
But
whether he is justified in the fees charged or not, is not our botheration –
but why was he used for defending our interests certainly is .. Lashing out at the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) over its accusations at the Congress replacing former solicitor general
of India Harish Salve with Pakistani counsel Khawar Qureshi in the 2004 Dabhol
Power Corporation matter, party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala defended
Khawar Qureshi. He told ANI: "Khawar Qureshi, who is being portrayed as a
terrorist, has been a part of the Queen's Counsel (QC) since 1990. He is an
additional high court judge in the United Kingdom, and also a professor at the
Cambridge University. He was appointed by the Indian government when two
investors from Enron filed a case against India at the International Court of
Arbitration in 2004.”
There
have been occasions when Congress
leaders Salman Khurshid and Mani Shankar Aiyar allegedly spoke in support of Pakistan; but this entrustment
of case, takes the cake.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
20th May
2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment