India made a ‘serious mistake’ by going to ICJ over Kulbhushan Jadhav: Markandey Katju

In a post on Facebook, the former Supreme Court judge said India has given Pakistan an opportunity to approach ICJ for deciding Kashmir dispute.

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: May 20, 2017 1:01 pm
Jallikattu, Jallikattu protests, Jallikattu-Markandey Katju, Markandey Katju on Jallikattu, Jallikattu events, Jallikattu latest updates, Tamil Nadu-Jallikattu, Jallikattu-Tamil Nadu, O Panneerselvam-Jallikattu, Madurai-Jallikattu, Jallikattu agitation, Marina Beach protests, India news, Indian Express Former Chairman, Press Council of India, Markandey Katju.

Former Press Council of India Chairman Markandey Katju in a social media post expressed concern over India’s move to file a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Pakistan’s military court order to execute former naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav. In a post on Facebook, Katju said India has given Pakistan an opportunity to approach ICJ for deciding Kashmir dispute. “Pakistan must be very happy that we went to the ICJ over a single individual’s fate, as now they can raise all kinds of issues, particularly Kashmir, in international fora, to which we had always objected till now. By going to the ICJ we may have opened up a Pandora’s box,” he wrote.

Katju also said that it appears Pakistan’s minimal objection towards ICJ’s jurisdiction is because India has given it a chance to open up several other issues in front of the international court.

“…we have played into Pakistan’s hands, and given it a handle to open up many other issues . In fact that is why it seems that Pakistan did not seriously object to the jurisdiction of ICJ,” he said. He further said India can no longer object to ICJ’s jurisdiction, in case Pakistan approached the international court over Kashmir.  “Now it is certain that Pakistan will approach the ICJ for deciding the Kashmir dispute, and it will then hardly lie in our mouth to object to the jurisdiction of ICJ, since we cannot blow hot and cold together,” he said.

Earlier this week, ICJ announced its judgement in Jadhav’s case and ruled in favour of India, ordering a stay on the execution. Jadhav was given a death sentence by a Pakistani military court after he was found guilty on charges of espionage. India strongly reacted against the decision and denied the authenticity of “confession” video offered by Pakistan as proof. India moved to ICJ regarding the matter after Pakistan denied consular access to Jadhav after repeated requests.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. N
    Nagarjuna
    May 22, 2017 at 5:52 am
    I was pained to see various comments on this. The retired judge made his point on this particular subject. I am not sure about its correctness, but there is an issue to be seriously thought of. This is because we are rejecting any interference of international forums in the Kashmir issue. We are at liberty to agree or disagree with his views. Some people instead of responding to the subject, started making derogatory comments against the author. This only shows our immaturity and prejudicial approach.
    Reply
    1. F
      Fazeel Khan
      May 21, 2017 at 6:05 pm
      Dear Indians, Please look at your double standards. In case of Mr. Jhadev you want justice to prevail and achieve it through intervention of international community. This is very nice and I appreciate it. But when it come to Kashmir you all want to run away from the very same forums and want to retain it by hooks or crook. This mentality has led both India and stan to nowhere since we got independence and our future will stay same unless we solve our issues in a just way once for all to prosper. Regards
      Reply
      1. S
        shailendra khare
        May 21, 2017 at 8:32 am
        I wonder how people with such intelligence and poor common sense can rise to such heights. Pathetic is the only word. How come an issue pertaining to Jadahv allows stan to take Kashmir issue to international forum? Does Hon'ble Retired Justice mean that there should be no multi national or international dea s with stan? We need to carry world with us to deal with stan. Politics is an ever changing thing and we know that there are no permanent friends or foes in International politics. Gone are the days when we had the luxury of Soviet Union Veto for which we had to accept poor grade weapons and other items. Now stan has the luxury of China Veto and we have to plan accordingly.
        Reply
        1. K
          kaladadkalimata
          May 20, 2017 at 10:34 pm
          there is nothing mentioned about Consular access. any way hie is not be hanged for 150 days. this is grace period for appeal. Hindu satan has blood on his hands
          Reply
          1. V
            Vipul
            May 20, 2017 at 10:26 pm
            I am not a law man, but this guy is wrong. This was a criminal case not a political issue. Political issues are not decided by the court. They have to be taken to the U.N. general council which stan has done already. Israel has never agreed to execute U.N. resolution 267. Indian government knows this. By the way-did everyone forget that we have a Simla agreement with stan which was never adhered to by stan.
            Reply
            1. K
              kaladadkalimata
              May 20, 2017 at 9:16 pm
              The fate of the Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the People's. We will not and cannot back out this (Pledge) We are prepared to have referendum held under international au es like United Nations. We want a fair and referendum of the peoples and we will accept their verdict.”” JAWAHARLAL NEHRU Indian sub continent will be divided in multiple states as it was before British Raj. WITH WILL OF ALLAH ALLAH KI YAHI MARZE HAI AUR AYYSSA HEE HO GA END OF STORY HINDU SATAN AS COUNTRY
              Reply
              1. A
                Ary Bose
                May 20, 2017 at 9:30 pm
                Please listen to the entire video from the link before replying. s: www. /watch?v kaGgfDI_t9w
                Reply
                1. N
                  naidu
                  May 20, 2017 at 10:45 pm
                  instead of wasting time, you should go back to stan
                  Reply
                  1. K
                    Kailash Prasad
                    May 22, 2017 at 11:07 am
                    YES KASHMIRI PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE THERE FATE WHEATHR THEY WILL REMAIN IN INDIAN SIDE OR OTHER SIDE OF THE BOARDER BUT KASHMIR WILL REMAIN WITH INDIA FOR EVER.IT IS STAN WHO HAS RIGHT TO ACCEPT THEM OR NOT.
                    Reply
                  2. K
                    kaladadkalimata
                    May 20, 2017 at 9:12 pm
                    UN RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 91 (1951) CONCERNING THE INDIA- STAN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES AND ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 30, 1951. (DO ENT NO. S/2017/REV. I, DATED THE 30TH MARCH, 1951) Observing that the Governments of India and stan have accepted the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and stan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the au es of the United Nations, RESOLUTION 98 (1952) ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL AT ITS 611TH MEETING ON 23 DECEMBER, 1952. (DO ENT NO. S/2883, DATED THE 24TH DECEMBER, 1952
                    Reply
                    1. K
                      kaladadkalimata
                      May 20, 2017 at 9:08 pm
                      India should go to UN and ask for implementation of UN resolutions. why so much hesitation since last about 70 years. some thing making India scared to implement UN resolutions.Go to UN and ask UN to have plebiscite in Kashmir . HINDU SATAN IS SHIVERING
                      Reply
                      1. K
                        kaladadkalimata
                        May 20, 2017 at 9:03 pm
                        over cleverness some time hurts
                        Reply
                        1. A
                          Ary Bose
                          May 20, 2017 at 8:54 pm
                          Why are these retired folks can't keep their mouth zipped?...sorry for being harsh but it must be said. A supreme court judge of India is not well versed with international law. There is an issue of jurisdiction. Majority of stan's complaint are either fake or not based on any legal premise.For instance, Kashmir plebiscite was put forward to UN by Nehru w/o the confidence of Indian Parliament, and thus has no legal standing as far as India is concerned. Besides, the first condition of the plebiscite is based on the premise that stan must vacate entire Kashmir region including its irregulars. Please listen to this eloquent speech followed by a Q&A with Omar Abdullah. I was there. s: www. /watch?v kaGgfDI_t9w
                          Reply
                          1. V
                            Vineet Bharti
                            May 21, 2017 at 1:10 am
                            Forget international laws, most judges don't even know the Indian laws
                            Reply
                          2. A
                            Am
                            May 20, 2017 at 8:53 pm
                            Why would ICJ entertain the Kashmir issue? India can say that when both India and stan went to the UN. They passed a resolution which was clear that since stan attacked Kashmir, they have to withdraw the forces then India should withdraw their forces and then take a vote from people but stan did not adhere to the first step. They lost their right to fight of going to International mediators long ago.
                            Reply
                            1. A
                              Ary Bose
                              May 20, 2017 at 8:45 pm
                              Why are these retired folks can't keep their mouth zipped?...sorry for being harsh but it must be said. A supreme court judge of India is not well versed with international law. There is an issue of jurisdiction. Majority of stan's complaint are either fake or not based on any legal premise.For instance, Kashmir plebiscite was put forward to UN by Nehru w/o the confidence of Indian Parliament, and thus has no legal standing as far as India is concerned. Besides, the first condition of the plebiscite is based on the premise that stan must vacate entire Kashmir region including its regulars. Please listen to this eloquent speech followed by a Q&A with Omar Abdullah. I was there. s: www. /watch?v kaGgfDI_t9w
                              Reply
                              1. A
                                Ary Bose
                                May 20, 2017 at 8:43 pm
                                Why are these retired folks can't keep their mouth zipped?...sorry for being harsh but it must be said. A supreme court judge of India is not well versed with international law. There is an issue of jurisdiction. Majority of stan's complaint are either fake or not based on any legal premise.For instance, Kashmir plebiscite was put forward to UN by Nehru w/o the confidence of Indian Parliament, and thus has no legal standing as far as India is concerned. Besides, the first condition of the plebiscite is based on the premise that stan must vacate entire Kashmir region including its regulars. Please listen to this eloquent speech followed by a Q&A with Omar Abdullah. I was there. s: www. /watch?v kaGgfDI_t9w
                                Reply
                                1. M
                                  Murali
                                  May 20, 2017 at 8:30 pm
                                  That India has won the case in ICJ proved the government right. stan cannot go to ICJ on Kashmir..nor ICJ can will admit such a pe ion.Even a Lay man knows this. Justice Katju should not put forward arguements for the sake of arguement without logic..and reasoning.
                                  Reply
                                  1. A
                                    Asad Faraz
                                    May 21, 2017 at 5:26 pm
                                    How win?
                                    Reply
                                  2. M
                                    Muntazir ali
                                    May 20, 2017 at 8:21 pm
                                    I hope stan take the full adcantage of this golden opportunity and free us(indian Occupied J&K) from these brutal clutches of bloody imperialist india.....
                                    Reply
                                    1. S
                                      Shyamal Ganguly
                                      May 20, 2017 at 7:58 pm
                                      LOL!! CATZOO at it again. A failed judge, who ate his words recently apologizing CSC (Corrupt Supreme Court) of India , tries to be in the lime light. CATZOO had been an avowd GADDHI PARIVAR JUdge all his life, now is pursuing a career as a comedian.
                                      Reply
                                      1. A
                                        afsar
                                        May 20, 2017 at 7:50 pm
                                        ye bahan india me kam pak me jyada famous ho gya ye comment karke
                                        Reply
                                        1. I
                                          Indian
                                          May 20, 2017 at 7:45 pm
                                          This is Modiji politics Mr Katju you can't understand. Don't you think this is the best option to get support from world community in case of war with that terrorist nation,if they go ahead and murder (execute )innocent Indian citizen Kulbhushan Jadav.
                                          Reply
                                          1. m
                                            m.narasimhan
                                            May 20, 2017 at 7:38 pm
                                            dear sir,it is not a third party invention&if the stan will not heed to the consult/views of india so naturally since there is no alternative forced to approach the icj when the mutual understanding&cordial relationshipfails and when stan is stubborn&adamant there is no way except seeking the icj,the cunning nature china hand in glove with stan to dmage the re tion of india which is a well known fact these kinds of jackal nature of stan will not be entertained in future,
                                            Reply
                                            1. B
                                              Balbir Singh Sooch
                                              May 20, 2017 at 7:14 pm
                                              4. TO END ILLOGICAL ENDS, INDIA MUST HAVE BEEN ASKED BY ‘BIG POWERS’ TO COME TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) ON THE ISSUE OF ‘KULBHUSHAN JADAV CASE’ TO CLEAR THE ATMOSPHERE (THE PREVAI TONE OR MOOD) FOR THE THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION IN THE DISPUTES PENDING BETWEEN INDIA AND STAN INCLUDING KASHMIR. 5. WILL THE QUESTIONS BE REMAINED UNANSWERED BY IGNORING TO BRING THE PEACE IN THE WORLD? BALBIR SINGH SOOCH-SIKH VICHAR MANCH HELPLESSLY ASKED? CAN’T BE SAID WHO WILL ANSWER WITH CERTAINITY -DEFIN ELY KNOWN, FIXED OR SETTLED and or HAVING NO DOUBTS ABOUT SOMETHING- AND OR TIME MAY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS? THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION: THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) BALBIR SINGH SOOCH-SIKH VICHAR MANCH : www.sikhvicharmanch / s: www.facebook /balbir.singh.355 : www.thekhalsa /frame.php?path 527&article 14129
                                              Reply
                                              1. B
                                                Balbir Singh Sooch
                                                May 20, 2017 at 7:10 pm
                                                ...together to strengthen cooperation “bilaterally” and “multilaterally- involving more than two parties or countries” to effectively counter terrorism’? WHAT ARE THE ENDS OF LOGICAL END VERSUS ILLOGICAL ENDS BETWEEN STAN AND INDIA?: The “multilaterally- involving more than two parties or countries” could be the answer to ‘WHAT ARE THE ENDS OF LOGICAL END VERSUS ILLOGICAL ENDS BETWEEN STAN AND INDIA’ as US desired and said recently and in clear terms before the situation go out of control between stan and India…….said in strongly words to that effect and seems stimulated the process, “multilaterally- involving more than two parties or countries” silently and has its an effect on-proceeding, going on. Isn’t?
                                                Reply
                                                1. Load More Comments