The Supreme Court was asked through a petition filed on Saturday to order the federal government to ensure an early decision under the domestic laws of Pakistan on any pending appeal by Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav.
The petition was moved by former senate chairman Advocate Farooq Naek on behalf of Muzamil Ali, a lawyer by profession. The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to order the immediate execution of the Indian spy if he failed to get his capital punishment overturned.
Jadhav was taken into custody in Balochistan in March 2016. He later confessed to his association with India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and his involvement in espionage and fomenting terrorism in Pakistan. This year, the field general court martial awarded him the death sentence, which was later confirmed by Chief of the Army Staff Gen Qamar Bajwa on April 10.
However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), through an interim ruling, stayed Jadhav’s execution till the time the case pending with it reached its logical end.
The petitioner also requested the court to declare that Jadhav’s trial had been conducted in accordance with the law, that due process had been observed and that he had had consular access as was demanded by India. The federal government, through the secretaries of interior and law, and the court of appeal constituted under the Pakistan Army Act (PPA) 1952, General Headquarters Rawalpindi, were named the respondents in the case.
The petition mentioned that Jadhav’s mother had moved an appeal on April 26 under Sections 131 and 133(b) of the PPA. According to Section 131, any person who considers himself aggrieved by the sentence of a court martial may submit a petition to the federal government or the chief of the army staff. Section 133(b) says that any person to whom a court martial has awarded a sentence of death or imprisonment for life may, within 40 days from the date of announcement of the sentence, can submit an appeal.
The petitioner argued that the people of Pakistan had a right of retribution against those who carried out subversive activities against their country, and that this right far outweighed the requirement to provide an information dissemination method to a convicted terrorist.
Jadhav, the petition alleged, admittedly was a RAW agent who had conducted anti-state activities at the behest of the Indian government. As such, Jadhav was acting as an agent of the State of India and not as a national of India, the petition argued, adding that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) was inapplicable in the current case and that the interim order of the ICJ lacked binding force.
It alleged that Pakistan’s sovereignty had come under unwarranted attack by its neighbouring country India which, for the sole purpose of maligning the reputation of Pakistan in the international community, had initiated proceedings in ICJ for seeking consular access to a convicted spy and terrorist.
The petitioner argued that the conduct of India, its arguments and representation in the ICJ constituted a repudiatory breach of the 2008 agreement as well as the VCCR, and as such, Pakistan was not bound by the terms of the convention.
