Pak says will grant consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav on Monday
Islamabad, Sep 1: Pakistan on Sunday said it will grant consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, who is on death row in the country, on Monday "in line with the ICJ judgement".
The announcement came nearly six months after a meeting between Indian officials and Jadhav did not materialise amid differences between New Delhi and Islamabad on the terms of the consular access to the retired Indian navy officer.
Jadhav, 49, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of "espionage and terrorism" in April 2017, following which India had moved the International Court of Justice (ICJ), seeking a stay on his death sentence and further remedies.
"Consular access for Indian spy Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav, a serving Indian naval officer and RAW operative, is being provided on Monday 2 September 2019, in line with Vienna Convention on Consular relations, ICJ judgement & the laws of Pakistan," Foreign Office Spokesman Mohammad Faisal tweeted.
"Commander Jadhav remains in Pakistan's custody, for espionage, terrorism and sabotage," he added.
Earlier, addressing a weekly media briefing on Thursday, Faisal said that Pakistan and India were in contact on the "issue of granting consular access" to Jadhav.
On the same day, India said it had asked for "immediate, effective and unhindered" consular access to Jadhav from Pakistan and was in touch with the neighbouring country through diplomatic channels.
However, Faisal's tweets on Sunday doesn't say if the consular access is unhindered as demanded by India.
On August 1, Pakistan Foreign Office said the retired Indian Navy officer on death row will be granted consular access the next day. However, the meeting, which was scheduled for 3 pm on August 2, did not materialise amid differences between India and Pakistan on the terms of the consular access to Jadhav.
On July 17, the ICJ ordered Pakistan to undertake an "effective review and reconsideration" of the conviction and sentence of Jadhav and also to grant consular access to India without further delay.
One of the conditions put by Pakistan reportedly was the presence of a Pakistani official when Jadhav is allowed to meet Indian officials as part of the consular access.
India did not agree to the condition, making clear its position that the consular access must be "unimpeded" and should be in the light of the judgement by the ICJ.
Pakistan claims that its security forces arrested Jadhav from the restive Balochistan province on March 3, 2016 after he reportedly entered from Iran.
However, India maintains that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after retiring from the Navy.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
