Kulbhushan Jadhav case: India-Pak treaty clause gives no access to ‘spies’

"According to clause 6 of that agreement... in cases where detentions and arrests relate to political or security matters, the request of consular access will be decided on merits of the case," said senior counsel Sidharth Luthra

Written by Jyoti Malhotra | New Delhi | Updated: May 16, 2017 8:13 am
kulbhushan jadhav, kulbhushan jadhav case, kulbhushan jadhav news, harish salve, khwara qureshi, india, pakistan, latest news Kulbhushan Jadhav. Express photo video grab.

INDIA AND Pakistan presented their initial arguments on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case in front of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Monday, but a bilateral consular access agreement in 2008 between the two countries may hold the key to this complex, legal matter. Clause 6 of the “Agreement on Consular Access” signed in Islamabad on May 21, 2008, by the high commissioners at the time, Shahid Malik of Pakistan and Satyabrata Pal of India,states: “In case of arrest, detention, or sentence made on political or security grounds, each side may examine the case on its merits.”

The phrase “political or security grounds” is critical, because it refers to what is known as “spies” in common parlance. Essentially, the agreement exempts spies from being given the same privileges that signatories to the Vienna Convention (like India and Pakistan) must grant each other’s citizens in jail.

The cases of these political or security prisoners, which will be examined by each country “on its merits”, means that a political judgement will be made by each government on the treatment that should be meted out to them.

So if relations are good, then the government holding such a prisoner may find it of “merit” to quietly repatriate him to his home country. If relations are not so good, then a high-profile spat like the one presently taking place is much more likely. Lawyers also say that India must now be prepared for Pakistan to retaliate and pay India back in the same coin by internationalising bilateral disputes in third-party forums.

“Approaching the ICJ is a legal strategy which achieves the objective of pointing out that the Pakistan justice delivery system (shows) lack of respect for international convention.But we should be prepared for expert claims by Pakistan in the ICJ and other forums,” senior counsel Sidharth Luthra told The Indian Express.

Asked if an ICJ verdict would open the door to greater third-party intervention, which India has abhorred so far, Luthra said, “The door was always open. The scope of application of international treaties at the ICJ does not create new access, but merely signals internationalisation of human rights issues which can play both ways.” Nafees Zakaria, the Pakistan foreign ministry spokesman, indicated his government’s preference for the 2008 bilateral agreement at a briefing on April 27.

“We have made it clear time and again that Pakistan and India have signed an agreement on consular access in 2008, and according to clause 6 of that agreement… in cases where detentions and arrests relate to political or security matters, the request of consular access will be decided on merits of the case. This remains our consistent position,” he said.

Jadhav, said Zakaria, was “working for (the) Indian intelligence agency R&AW and was caught red-handed. He made confessions and was tried for espionage activities”. Meaning, the Pakistan state has characterised Jadhav as a “security prisoner,” and would rather apply the 2008 bilateral agreement to him than the Vienna Convention. However, Indian officials insist the 2008 agreement and Clause 6 cannot contravene the 1963 Vienna Convention of which both countries are party.

According to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, consular officers “shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending state” (the country whose national is in jail), “shall have the right to visit a national of the sending state who is in prison,” and “the receiving state (the country in which the national is jailed) shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending state (that) a national of that state is arrested or committed to prison.”

It is the difference of understanding on this procedural aspect that the Indian case at the ICJ essentially rests.

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

  1. V
    Vertiti Scrutator
    May 17, 2017 at 8:04 pm
    Jyoti Malhotra is probably the most brazen person in India who's been aggressively touting the stani line, while suppressing the Indian arguments!!! Or is she one lazy journalist who never even cared to listen in to the actual arguments put forth at ICJ?? Indian counsel (Harish Salve) has put forth the argument that the Vienna Conventions of 1963 allows countries to have bilateral agreements that could ENHANCE and AMPLIFY the Vienna conventions provisions, but they cannot DILUTE the provisions!! As such, even if India & stan signed a treaty that has provisions to deny consular access on the basis of 'political or 'security' grounds, such provisions get nullified by the su ding Vienna Conventions!!! I am very curious why Jyoti Malhotra is on every news show and newspaper aggressively touting the stani line!!! Has she been compromised by the ISI??
    Reply
    1. A
      akash
      May 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm
      pak paid writer
      Reply
      1. A
        atul chaudhari
        May 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm
        Instead of arguing the case and proving that he is a spy they are questioning the jurisdiction of ICJ. Do they know the consequences? India can arrest any Pak national in India, Tag him as spy and hang him after a military trail without providing evidences? Kaise Chu... hai ye.
        Reply
        1. S
          sohail
          May 16, 2017 at 11:23 am
          kulbhushan is dangerous criminal i request indian govt let pak hang him there so thet we get rid of this safron terrorists - already so many safron terrorists let free roaming on roads of india like SADVI PRAGYA SHARMA AS-E-MA-NA-AND vanzara , amit tadipar
          Reply
          1. R
            R S
            May 16, 2017 at 10:57 am
            I would not trust this writer, but I also wouldn't go so far as to call her a agent.
            Reply
            1. U
              Urmila Duhan
              May 16, 2017 at 7:49 am
              First and foremost, it has to be proved in a court of law that the charged person is a spy. For proving this in court, the charged person should have his legal rights in place to fight the case.
              Reply
              1. c
                countk99
                May 16, 2017 at 5:35 am
                The writer is paid agent of Pa kis, The agreement was at high commissioners level only and it is not registered in ICJ. India does not need external enemies as India got a lot within the country.
                Reply
                1. A
                  Anand Sudan
                  May 16, 2017 at 7:47 am
                  Yes. you are absolutely right
                  Reply
                  1. S
                    Sohail
                    May 16, 2017 at 11:42 am
                    Why was it signed if that agreement has no value. What was the need ?
                    Reply
                    1. V
                      Vertiti Scrutator
                      May 17, 2017 at 8:22 pm
                      How does stan get to sign Shimla agreement and then ignore it for other UN agreements?? Similarly the bilateral agreement signed has some invalid provisions - Vienna Conventions allow bilateral agreements that only enhance and amplify its provisions, anything that dilutes Vienna conventions rendered inapplicable!!! And btw...even though stan disowns Shimla agreement in preference to the UN resolution - the UN resolution is much more stringent on stan (which stan is too stupid to even realize!)
                  2. C
                    Common Man
                    May 16, 2017 at 4:34 am
                    Both Indian and " "stan bureaucracies are bottom of the barrel - both having roots in the glorified clerical services ins uted by British. You can't expect them to draft and sign agreements which comply with international laws
                    Reply
                    1. Load More Comments