Captain Saurabh Kalia case: Chandrasekhar calls for pursuing case in ICJ

[Indian Patriot]

Many Indian members were also justifying not taking the case to ICJ because their government said so, that is bhakt mentality for you.

 

[Hindustani78]

Many Indian members were also justifying not taking the case to ICJ because their government said so, that is bhakt mentality for you.

ICJ cant do anything here. Have any Super Power dragged in ICJ ? India do respect international institutions but India doesnt need to go to ICJ.

 

[Indian Patriot]

ICJ cant do anything here. Have any Super Power dragged in ICJ ? India do respect international institutions but India doesnt need to go to ICJ.

Since when did Pakistan become a super power?

The government and even the army itself have abandoned the case for the late Saurav Kalia. Saurav Kalia's father is fighting a lonely battle with no help from the army or the government.

The most infuriating thing was how a bunch of Indian jokers in PDF were celebrating the decision of GOI not to pursue the case in ICJ because those idiots thought it was a wise decision to make, and that is because they are bhakts of the present government.

 

[Hindustani78]

Since when did Pakistan become a super power?

The government and even the army itself have abandoned the case for the late Saurav Kalia. Saurav Kalia's father is fighting a lonely battle with no help from the army or the government.

The most infuriating thing was how a bunch of Indian jokers in PDF were celebrating the decision of GOI not to pursue the case in ICJ because those idiots thought it was a wise decision to make, and that is because they are bhakts of the present government.

Based in The Hague in Netherlands, this 15-judge court was established in 1945 by the United Nations Charter. The statute of the ICJ regulates the functioning of the Court.

All members of the UN are automatic parties to the statute, but this does not automatically give ICJ jurisdiction over disputes involving them. The ICJ gets jurisdiction only on the basis of consent of both parties. -

Where does India stand vis-a-vis dispute resolution at ICJ?

In September 1974, India declared the matters over which it accepts the jurisdiction of the ICJ. This declaration revoked and replaced the previous declaration made in September 1959.

Among the matters over which India does not accept ICJ jurisdiction are: “disputes with the government of any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations”, and “disputes relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence…”. The declaration, which includes other exceptions as well, has been ratified by Parliament.

Has India ever taken as case to the ICJ?

Yes, once — even though it has been a party to a total five cases, three of them with Pakistan, at the ICJ. In 1971, India filed a case against the jurisdiction of International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to decide on Pakistan’s demand that India could not deny it overflight and landing rights. India had withdrawn Pakistan’s overflight rights after the January 1971 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight to Lahore, and the gutting of the aircraft by the hijackers. The ICJ ruled against India, saying that ICAO had jurisdiction in this case.

In 1954, Portugal had filed a case against India over denial of passage to what were then the Portugese territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. ICJ decided in India’s favour in 1960, saying India’s refusal of passage was covered by its power of regulation and control of the right of passage of Portugal.

In 1973, Pakistan filed a case to stop the repatriation to Bangladesh of 195 Pakistani nationals in Indian custody after the 1971 War, to face trial on charges of genocide, but withdrew the case the next year. After 1974, Pakistan, a Commonwealth nation, can no longer take India to the ICJ.

Didn’t Pakistan also take India to the ICJ in 1999?

Yes, after India shot down a Breguet Atlantique patrol plane of the Pakistan Navy in Indian air space over the Rann of Kutch. India contested the case, and the ICJ upheld India’s position that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Pakistan’s claim.

India has raised the issue with Pakistan as a violation of the rights of PoWs under the Geneva Convention, but to no avail. Replying to a question in Parliament last July, V K Singh, MoS for External Affairs, had said: “The possibility of seeking legal remedies through the international courts was also thoroughly examined but not found feasible.”

Kalia’s father filed a PIL in the Supreme Court last year, asking the Indian government to take the case to the ICJ. The government filed an affidavit in December saying the ICJ had no jurisdiction over disputes between India and Pakistan, and that a PIL could not seek action against a foreign country, as foreign policy is a government function.

What does this position imply?

It is India’s own law, ratified by Parliament, which denies the ICJ jurisdiction over this matter. Even if the Supreme Court asks the government to move the ICJ, it is highly unlikely that Pakistan will accept the Court’s jurisdiction in this case. Also, going to the ICJ can theoretically open up all cases between India and Pakistan to multilateral jurisdiction, thus weakening New Delhi’s consistent stand that all issues with Islamabad would be resolved bilaterally. Once India has accepted ICJ’s jurisdiction over bilateral issues, Pakistan could well demand that the ICJ arbitrate on alleged human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir, or military operations on the Line of Control, or any other issue.

 

[Thorough Pro]

if you can stomach death of your soldiers in the act of war, then take away their guns and give them henna and bangles

 

[Indian Patriot]

What does this position imply?

You still don't get it do you? It is about India standing with the father of the slain soldier. The father of Saurav Kalia is not a fool. What happened during the war was a gross violation of human rights and India has the option of filing an official complaint. Instead both he government and the army has abandoned the case and a single father is knocking on the doors of justice.

if you can stomach death of your soldiers in the act of war, then take away their guns and give them henna and bangles

Death in custody by torture is a gross violation of human rights and Geneva protocol.

 

[Hindustani78]

You still don't get it do you? It is about India standing with the father of the slain soldier. The father of Saurav Kalia is not a fool. What happened during the war was a gross violation of human rights and India has the option of filing an official complaint. Instead both he government and the army has abandoned the case and a single father is knocking on the doors of justice.



Death in custody by torture is a gross violation of human rights and Geneva protocol.

GoI has already showed in front of all the whole world about the mistreatment which Indian Prisoners of war has gone through during the Kargil war but the same Indians have treated 90,000 Pakistan PoW's according to the International Conventions and provided them food rations and treated soldiers as soldiers.

 

[Indian Patriot]

GoI has already showed in front of all the whole world about the mistreatment which Indian Prisoners of war has gone through during the Kargil war but the same Indians have treated 90,000 Pakistan PoW's according to the International Conventions and provided them food rations and treated soldiers as soldiers.

That is not enough. GOI has provided no assistance to the father of Saurav Kalia.