MEA terms ICJ judgement as an 'essential first step' in saving Jadhav

Irked by International Court of Justice's ruling, Pakistan lashed out at India for presenting Kulbhushan Jadhav's case from a humanitarian angle.

New Delhi, May 18: India on Thursday said the International Court of Justice's decision on Kulbhushan Jadhav is an "essential first step" in ensuring justice for him.

"The provisional relief constitutes an essential first step in ensuring justice for Jadhav," External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay said at a briefing, hours after the ICJ asked Pakistan not to execute the alleged spy till final hearing of the matter.

"This is a unanimous decision of the highest court, there is no unambiguity in this judgement. It is clear that as long as a final decision does not come Jadhav should be safe," he said, adding that the ruling would help in finding remedy to "violation of Jadhav's rights and also the violation of international convention by Pakistan".

"This order creates legally binding international obligation," he said.

Irked by International Court of Justice's ruling, Pakistan lashed out at India for presenting former navy officer's case from a humanitarian angle.

Pakistan Foreign Ministry also accused New Delhi of trying to defend a person responsible for deaths of scores of innocent Pakistanis.

The International Court of Justice on Thursday directed Pakistan not to hang Kulbhushan Jadhav until it rules on the merits of the case.

The ICJ held that it would give a ruling on the merits of the case and until such time the former naval officer accused by Pakistan of being a spy cannot be hanged. The final order of the ICJ is expected in August.

The court held that the circumstances of Jadhav's arrest remains disputed. Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that no execution takes place until the disposal of the petition, the ICJ held.

The ICJ held that consular access is a right and Pakistan should have accorded the same to India. Pakistan had contended that this would not be applicable in cases of espionage and terrorism.

IANS