MEA: Pak approach in Jadhav case ‘farcical’

NEW DELHI: India on Thursday accused Pakistan of blocking all legal remedies to Indian death row convict Kulbhushan Jadhav.

MEA Spokesperson Anurag Srivastava also said Pakistan adopted a “farcical approach” in handling the case, adding India is exploring available options in the matter.

“In the absence of an unimpeded and unhindered consular access as well as of the relevant documents, as a last resort, India tried to file a petition on July 18,” he said during an online media briefing. “However, our Pakistani lawyer informed that a review petition could not be filed in the absence of power of attorney and supporting documents related to the case of Jadhav,” he added.

Pakistan had earlier this month said July 20 is the last date of filing a review petition by Jadhav against the death sentence handed down to him by a Pakistani military court.

The 50-year-old retired Indian Navy officer was sentenced to death by the Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and terrorism in April 2017. India approached the International Court of Justice against Pakistan for denial of consular access to Jadhav and challenging the death sentence.

The Hague-based ICJ ruled in July 2019 that Pakistan must undertake an “effective review and reconsideration” of the conviction and sentence of Jadhav and also to grant consular access to India without further delay.

On Wednesday, Pakistani media had reported that the Pakistan government filed a petition in the Islamabad high court seeking appointment of a “legal representative” for Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav, according to the Pakistani media.

However, the main parties, including the government of India, were been consulted ahead of the filing of the application. The Pakistan government, in the petition, has asked the court to appoint a legal representative for Jadhav so that Pakistan can fulfil its responsibility to see to the implementation of the International Court of Justice’s decision, the Pakistani media, including the Geo News, reported.

“As t h e h i g h c o u r t h a s already heard the matter after prol onged arguments and reserved the order, we are not staying the passing of the order, however, whatever order is passed, shall be ultimately subject to the outcome of this petition,” the bench headed by justice Arun Mishra and also comprising justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari said, and fixed the matter for hearing on July 27.

“The case requires prolonged hearing so as to decide the question of jurisdiction. However, prayer is made that the high court should not pass an order on which it has heard the matter and reserved the order,” the bench said in its order.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing f or t he speaker, raised questions over jurisdiction of the high court in entertaining the plea filed by the MLAS and said that the court can only intervene after the Speaker takes a decision on either suspension or disqualification of a member of the House.

Referring to the high court’s July 21 order asking the speaker to defer the disqualification proceedings till Friday, Sibal said, “How can the high court direct the Speaker to extend the time? This is not the jurisdiction of the court”. He referred to a famous top court verdict rendered in the 1992 Kihoto Hollohan case, in which it was held that courts can’t intervene in the disqualification proceedings undertaken by t he Speaker under 1 0 t h Schedule to the Constitution.

Sibal said that speaker has not decided anything and he has just issued notice to these MLAS and they should respond to it. He referred to the grounds for the disqualification proceedings and said not attending party meeting, conspiracy to destabilise their own government, going to Haryana and staying in hotel incommunicado, giving statements on TV a nd d e manding floor test against their own government amounts to “voluntarily giving up membership of the party” under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule.

The bench then asked whether these MLAS have been either expelled from the party or have they resigned. When Sibal said “no”, the bench observed, “We a r e t r yi ng t o f i nd o ut whether the process resorted to is permissible or not.”

To this, Sibal said, “Whether it is permissible or not, the court can’t go into in at this stage”.

The bench observed, “Voice of dissent in democracy cannot be shut down like this”.

“This is not a simple matter. This is a matter where persons are elected by the public. They are peoples’ representative,” the bench said, adding that the speaker has the right to decide on the disqualification issue but there has to be reasons also.

Sibal said these MLAS can voice their dissent in the party meeting and as the speaker has given them chance to respond to the disqualification petition, t hey c a n e xpl a i n a l l t hese aspects.

He said reasons have to come in disqualification proceedings and the high court’s direction to defer it is like a “protection” to these MLAS.

Senior a dvocate Harish Salve, appearing for some of the dissident MLAS, said counsel for the Speaker had appeared and argued at length before the high court and now they can’t ask for a stay of the proceedings there.

Se ni o r a d v o c a t e Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for some of these MLAS, said that when the speaker had extended the time twice when matter was heard there, then what is the problem if the high court says so.

During t he heari ng, t he bench asked Sibal, “If somebody is not attending it (party meeting) then will it be taken as that he is against the party?”

To this, Sibal said, “Who says they will be disqualified on this ground? The speaker will decide the issue”. He said is not only for not attending the party meeting as there is much more to it and the speaker has the examine the conduct of the members of the House.”

When the bench said the matter was required to be heard at length, Sibal said, “I request transfer of high court’s matter to yourself”. When the bench said, “Not right now”, Sibal said then the apex court should stay the further proceedings in the high court.

Joshi has challenged the Rajasthan high court’s July 21 order, which said the verdict on t he peti t i on f i l e d by t he 1 9 MLAS, challenging the disqualification notices, will be pronounced on July 24 and asked him to defer the disqualification proceedings till then. he lamented.

A lot of work, Modi pointed out, is being done to change this situation.

He said a huge investment is being made under the National Bamboo Mission. This will benefit the youth of the northeast, and the startups here.

Many institutes are now being set up for health, education, skill development and startups.

With the formation of sports university and world class stadia, Manipur is becoming a major hub for the country’s sports talent, he observed.

Speaking on the water supply project, the prime minister said it is a big day for lakhs of people of Manipur, including Imphal, as it will reduce the water problems faced by them.

He said women will especially benefit as they won’t have to travel for kilometers to fetch clean water. The project has been designed keeping in mind needs of the next 20-22 years and lakhs of people will get access to clean drinking water, while thousands will get employment, he said.

An externally funded project, t he Manipur water s upply project was designed to provide freshwater household tap connections (FHTCS) to remaining households in Greater Imphal planning area, and for 1,731 rural habitations covering 2,80,756 households in all 16 districts of Manipur.

The project outlay is ~3,054 crore, with a loan component funded by the New Development Bank.

“Asiana is in a bind because it also can’t afford for its pilots to lose their licenses.”

Asiana had another 135 pilots who didn’t have enough flying time on its six A380s, but it couldn’t afford to keep flying the empty jet. In the end, the country’s transport ministry extended the pilots’ flying credentials as a special exemption. Japan’s All Nippon Airways, which operates two A380s, received a similar extension from Japan’s aviation authority.

Most of the big A380 operators, like Asiana’s rival Korean Air Lines Co., have their own simulators.

The International Civil Aviation Organization has provided guidelines to state members on how to help pilots keep up their skills. Normally, pilots must have taken off and landed an aircraft at least three times within the previous 90 days to keep their license.

The problem is acute for the biggest jets, which were designed for an age of mass travel. But Boeing Co.’s 747 has more simulators and is used by many airlines, including Korean Air, for cargo flights, allowing carriers to rotate crews to keep them certified.

The International Air Transport Association said international air traffic may not return to pre-covid levels until 2024.

One of the few that’s still flying the A380 is Emirates Airlines, which has the world’s biggest fleet of the superjumbos. The airline restarted A380 flights on July 15 to London Heathrow and Paris as Dubai eased travel restrictions.

Deutsche Lufthansa AG said last month its A380 jets will be mothballed for at least two years and may never return to service. Even before the virus, weak demand for the giant plane caused Airbus to announce it would stop making the A380 next year.

“It’s like you’re basically stuck with a 1990 car that’s running on diesel,” said Shukor Yusof, founder of aviation consulting firm Endau Analytics.