India vs Pakistan: How ICJ’s order on #KulbhushanJadhav was covered in newspapers

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in India’s favour in the case of consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, a former naval officer who was sentenced to death by Pakistan on charges of espionage and conspiracy against Pakistan. The verdict was pronounced in favour of India with 15 votes to one. It was announced five months after an ICJ bench reserved its decision in February after hearing oral submissions.

However, the ICJ rejected remedies sought by India, including annulment of military court decision convicting Kulbhushan Jadhav, his release and safe passage to India, The Indian Express reported.

Given the stakes, the order was front and centre for newspapers in both India and Pakistan.

The Indian Express led with: “Justice in International Court”. In its explained section, Express also stated: “Granting consular access and legal help to Kulbhushan Jadhav is low-hanging fruit which Delhi can pluck from the verdict. The court steered clear of adjudicating on charges against Jadhav and didn’t set him free. It has called for a review but has left it to Pak to decide how. It’s upon Pak to show if it follows a process that’s fair—and seen to be fair in tune with the verdict.”

Express also had a full-page coverage inside with a slug “Jadhav Verdict”.

The Times of India carried the ICJ’s verdict on its jacket cover and had a full-page coverage inside. The inside page slug read: “Pressure on Pakistan”. On page 12, the TOI carried a story which pointed out: “Pakistan says it has scored a victory”. This was placed right under a story which described: “How India won the legal battle”. 

Times of India also carried an editorial, “Reprieve For Jadhav”. It stated: “Pakistani authorities have tried to paint Jadhav as an Indian Ajmal Kasab. But drawing any equivalence between the Pakistani terrorist who directly killed scores of Indian citizens during the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai and Jadhav is ridiculous.” The editorial also described the order as the ICJ calling “Pakistan’s bluff”.

The Hindustan Times also covered “victory for India” on its front-page. Its headline stated:
ICJ tells Pak to review Jadhav death penalty.” In its inside pages, HT also pointed out that the ICJ’s verdict on Jadhav brought much hope and cheer.

The Hindu‘s front-page pointed out India’s long fight for justice. The blurb for the lead article stated: “World court rejects claim that the Vienna Convention doesn’t apply in a ‘spy case'”. The paper also carried an op-ed which stated: “The final verdict will, hopefully, galvanise the Indian establishment to step on the pedal and exert pressure on Pakistan to rescind the death sentence and allow Mr Jadhav consular access and legitimate legal platform to mount his defence.”

Dawn‘s front-page story was on the verdict though it kept it brief, simply headlined “ICJ rejects Indian plea for Jadhav’s acquittal, release”. The strap also stated that Pakistan was asked to provide consular access to Jadhav.

Detailed stories continued on page 3 with a timeline of the case, and quotes from Pakistan’s foreign minister and former chief justice. No editorials were carried on the verdict.

The Nation’s front page proclaimed “Pakistan wins Jadhav case at UN court”, saying the ICJ rejected India’s claim to “acquit and return spy-terrorist”. The story, like most others, noted the violations of the Vienna Convention and the court’s statement on the need for review. It quoted the Director General Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Asif Ghafoor as calling it a “great victory for Pakistan”. It also called it “another February 27 for India”.

The editorial on page 6 noted that the ICJ verdict was “judicious” and said: “Pakistan’s lack of consular access was a valid contention, but India’s demanded relief, as well as its wish to brush away the espionage charge on Jadhav, were incredulous.”

Three-quarters of The Express Tribune‘s front page was devoted to the verdict. “Pakistan vindicated” was the headline.

A smaller story quoted Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, former chief justice of Pakistan, as saying: “India’s reliance on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations … is misplaced and subverts the very object and purpose of the convention … it would be unlikely for the drafters of the convention to have intended for its rights and obligations to apply to spies and other foreign nationals sent on secret missions to threaten and undermine the national security of the receiving state.”

The newspaper’s editorial was titled “Winners and more winners”. Just as we’re doing here, it noted “predictably voices on both sides are claiming both victory and defeat”. It said: “For Pakistanis, all hope has been pinned on an ultimate comeuppance against ‘bully’ India. For Indians, the ideal victory would have been total humiliation for Pakistan. As it stands, the ICJ verdict is one that allows the governments and media in both countries to claim victory.”

Over at Pakistan Observer, the blurb stated that Jadhav’s “death sentence still stands” even though its copy says: “Pakistan has been directed to suspend the execution of the death penalty awarded to Jadhav till it fulfills the new conditions.”