“Islam as the most peaceful religion of the world”: UNESCO said it Fake

Certificate of Peace is a fake documents UNESCO

Several Islamists have been circulating above certificate by saying that UNESCO has declared as such, but the UNESCO declared on 11.07.2016 by its website that the purported certificate is fake and the never issued such by UNESCO.

The UNESCO statement :

UNESCO denounces fake statement

We wish to refer to the recent allegations posted on the website juntakareporter, citing an alleged statement and certificate from UNESCO declaring “Islam as the most peaceful religion of the world”. Such statement was never made by the Organization and that the certificate reproduced on this website is a fake one. The website that published this information is a satirical media.

UNESCO has never had any official relationship with the entity referred to as “International Peace Foundation”, nor has it ever supported such a statement or granted any diploma of this kind.

In line with its mandate, the Organization has the responsibility to promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue on a global scale, with the unerring support of its Member States, partners and networks. In doing so, UNESCO promotes respect on equal grounds for all traditions and faiths, always striving to build bridges and strengthen ties whenever possible.

NOVEMBER 13TH, 2019


Source: UNESCO

Additional mentioning: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/times-fact-check/news/fake-alert-no-unesco-has-not-declared-islam-as-the-worlds-most-peaceful-religion/articleshow/70071918.cms

There will be a complete ban on purchase of all types of vehicles in Pakistan

Islamabad: Ministry of Finance on Friday issued an Office Memorandum (OM) announcing more austerity measures for financial year 2019-20 with immediate effect. Under the new order:

(i) There will be a complete ban on purchase of all types of vehicles (excluding motorcycles) both for current as well as development expenditure.

(ii) Creation of new posts will be banned except those required for development projects and approved by the competent authority.
(iii) Entitlement of periodical, magazines, newspapers etc. of entitled officers will remain restricted to only one.

(iv) Principal Accounting Officers (PAOs) will ensure rationalised utility consumption i.e. electricity, gas, telephone, water etc and the expenditure on purchase of assets, repair & maintenance and other operational expenditure shall be kept at bare minimum level while remaining within the budgetary allocation for the financial year.

(v) Two sides of paper shall be used in all official communications.

Economic survey of 2018-19 reveled that during first nine month of current fiscal year, EDL recorded an increase of US$ 10.6 billion to stand at US$ 105.8 billion at end-March 2019 out of which public debt was US$ 74.2 billion. External public debt increased by around US$ 3.9 billion during first nine months of current fiscal year compared with the increase of US$ 6.7 billion witnessed during the same period last year. Borrowing from commercial sources (foreign commercial banks and Eurobonds/Sukuks) have relatively increased during the last few years, however, external public debt still largely comprises multilateral and bilateral sources which cumulatively constituted 78 percent of external public debt portfolio at end March 2019. During first nine month of current fiscal year, EDL recorded an increase of US$ 10.6 billion to stand at US$ 105.8 billion at end March 2019 out of which public debt was US$ 74.2 billion. External public debt increased by around US$ 3.9 billion during first nine months of current fiscal year compared with the increase of US$ 6.7 billion witnessed during the same period last year. Borrowing from commercial sources (foreign commercial banks and Eurobonds/Sukuks) have relatively increased during the last few years, however, external public debt still largely comprises multilateral and bilateral sources which cumulatively constituted 78 percent of external public debt portfolio at end March 2019. During first nine month of current fiscal year, EDL recorded an increase of US$ 10.6 billion to stand at US$ 105.8 billion at end March 2019 out of which public debt was US$ 74.2 billion. External public debt increased by around US$ 3.9 billion during first nine months of current fiscal year compared with the increase of US$ 6.7 billion witnessed during the same period last year. Borrowing from commercial sources (foreign commercial banks and Eurobonds/Sukuks) have relatively increased during the last few years, however, external public debt still largely comprises multilateral and bilateral sources which cumulatively constituted 78 percent of external public debt portfolio at end March 2019.

August 25, 2019,

India revokes Kashmir’s special autonomy through a presidential Order

Jammu and Kashmir

By repealing Article 370 of the constitution, people from the rest of India will now have the right to acquire property in occupied Kashmir and settle there permanently.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday 5th August 2019 proposed revoking Article 370 of India’s constitution, which confers special rights to permanent residents of Kashmir.

Article 370(3) of the Indian constitution permits revocation of Article 370 by presidential order. However, such an order must be introduced before the state’s Constituent Assembly. Since that body was dissolved in 1957, only a presidential order is sufficient for the revocation.

Gazette notification for the abrogation of Article 370 [ The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019] Has been issued on 5th August 2019 in the early morning.

The order said:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 370 of the Constitution, the President, with the concurrence of the Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir, is pleased to make the following Order:—

  1. (1)  This Order may be called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019.

(2) It shall come into force at once, and shall thereupon supersede the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 as amended from time to time.

2.  All the provisions of the Constitution, as amended from time to time, shall apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the exceptions and modifications subject to which they shall so apply shall be as follows:—

To article 367, there shall be added the following clause, namely:—

“(4) For the purposes of this Constitution as it applies in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir—

(a) references to this Constitution or to the provisions thereof shall be construed as references to the Constitution or the provisions thereof as applied in relation to the said State;

(b) references to the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadar-i-Riyasat of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office, shall be construed as references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir;

(c) references to the Government of the said State shall be construed as including references to the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of his Council of Ministers; and

(d) in proviso to clause (3) of article 370 of this Constitution, the expression “Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2)” shall read “Legislative Assembly of the State”.

Jammu and kashmir

Later home minister Amit Shah,  made a statement in the Rajya Sabha, said the order was brought under Part 3 of Article 370.

He said .”Rashtrapati sansad ki is sipharish par ghoshana karte hain, ki… jis din Rashtrapati ke dwara is ghoshana pe hastakshar kiye jayenge, isey sarkari gazette mein prakashit kiya jayega, us din se Anuchhed 370 ke sabhi khand laagu nahin honge (The President on the dvice of the Parliament announces that… the day the President signs the order, publishes it in the gazette notification, from that day all sections of Article 370 will cease to be implemented),”

Article 35A of India’s constitution permits the local legislature to define permanent residents of the Kashmir.

Article 35A forbids Indians from outside the state from permanently settling, buying land, holding local government jobs or winning education scholarships in the region. Article 35-A was inserted into the constitution on May 17, 1954, by a presidential order made under Article 370 without the ratification of Constituent Assembly. Article 35-A is a mere executive order under Article 370.

The basic principles committee set up by the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly presented its report on Feb 3, 1954 with the following recommendations:

“All these fundamental rights should be subject to the overriding condition that:

(i) no law of [J&K] relating to [J&K] subjects to be hereafter called ‘permanent residents’ and regulating their rights and privileges; and (ii) no law hereafter to be made by the [J&K] legislature defining the permanent residents and conferring on them special rights and privileges in relation to acquisition and holding of property in [J&K] or in the matter of employment under [J&K] and imposing restrictions on citizens other than permanent residents for settling within [J&K] should become void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Part III of Constitution of India.”

The article, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also bars female including their children, residents of Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state.

Two months after India`s independence from British rule in 15th August 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, the then ruler of Kashmir signed a Treaty of Accession for the state to join with India.

In addition, Home Minister Amit Shah also introduced a Bill bifurcating the State of Jammu of Kashmir into Union Territory of Ladakh and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to provide for the reorganisation of the existing State of Jammu and Kashmir and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Full Text of J & K Reorganisation Bill

Jammu and kashmir

 

 

JADHAV CASE (INDIA v. PAKISTAN)-17 July 2019

International Court of Justice

India requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Pursuant to the foregoing, India asks the Court to declare that the sentence of Pakistan’s military court is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention, and that India is entitled to restitutio in integrum. It also requests the Court to annul the decision of the military court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, to direct Pakistan to release Mr. Jadhav and to facilitate his safe passage to India. In the alternative, and if the Court were to find that Mr. Jadhav is not to be released, India requests the Court to annul the decision of the military court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by that court. In the further alternative, India asks the Court to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military court. In either event, it requests the Court to direct a trial under ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding Mr. Jadhav’s confession and in strict conformity with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with full consular access and with a right for India to arrange for Mr. Jadhav’s legal representation.

Held: Pakistan to take all measures to provide for effective review and reconsideration, including, if necessary, by enacting appropriate legislation — Continued stay of execution constitutes condition for effective review and reconsideration of conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav. Order to review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, till that execution shall be stayed.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2019

General List
No. 168
17 July 2019

JADHAV CASE

(INDIA v. PAKISTAN)

Factual background — Arrest and detention by Pakistan of an individual named Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav — Mr. Jadhav accused of involvement in espionage and terrorism activities — Criminal proceedings instituted — Mr. Jadhav sentenced to death by military court in Pakistan.

Jurisdiction of the Court — Dispute relates to interpretation and application of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — The Court has jurisdiction under Article I of Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

Admissibility of India’s Application.

First objection of Pakistan to admissibility — Alleged abuse of process — No basis to conclude that India abused its procedural rights when it requested indication of provisional measures — Articles II and III of Optional Protocol do not contain preconditions to the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction — First objection to admissibility rejected.

Second objection of Pakistan to admissibility — Alleged abuse of rights — Contention by Pakistan that India failed to prove Mr. Jadhav’s nationality — No room for doubt that Mr. Jadhav is of Indian nationality — Other arguments advanced by Pakistan based on alleged breaches of India’s international obligations under Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) — Allegations to be examined below as part of the merits — Second objection to admissibility rejected.

Third objection of Pakistan to admissibility — India’s alleged unlawful conduct — Pakistan’s objection based on “clean hands” doctrine rejected — No explanation how alleged unlawful conduct by India prevented Pakistan from providing consular access — Pakistan’s objection based on principle of “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” cannot be upheld — Principle “ex injuria jus non oritur” inapposite in present case — Third objection to admissibility rejected.

India’s Application admissible.

Applicability of Article 36 of Vienna Convention.

Alleged exception based on charges of espionage — No reference in Vienna Convention to cases of espionage — Article 36 does not exclude from its scope persons suspected of espionage — Consular access expressly regulated by Article 36, and not by customary international law — Relevance of 2008 Agreement on Consular Access between India and Pakistan — No restriction on rights guaranteed by Article 36 in 2008 Agreement — 2008 Agreement constitutes a subsequent agreement within meaning of Article 73, paragraph 2, of Vienna Convention — Point (vi) of 2008 Agreement does not displace obligations under Article 36 — None of arguments concerning applicability of Article 36 of Vienna Convention can be upheld — Vienna Convention applicable in present case.

Alleged violations of Article 36 of Vienna Convention.

Alleged failure of Pakistan to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b) — Allegation not contested by Pakistan — Mr. Jadhav not informed of his rights — Finding that Pakistan breached its obligation to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b).

Alleged failure of Pakistan to inform India, without delay, of arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav — Pakistan under obligation to inform India’s consular post of arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav — Notification some three weeks after his arrest — Finding that Pakistan breached its obligation to inform India “without delay” of Mr. Jadhav’s arrest and detention.

Alleged failure of Pakistan to provide consular access — Consular access to Mr. Jadhav not granted by Pakistan — Finding that Pakistan breached its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c) by denying consular officers of India access to Mr. Jadhav.

Abuse of rights.

No basis under Vienna Convention for a receiving State to condition fulfilment of its obligations under Article 36 on the sending State’s compliance with other international law obligations — Pakistan’s contentions based on abuse of rights rejected.

Remedies.

Pakistan under obligation to cease internationally wrongful acts of a continuing character — Mr. Jadhav to be informed without further delay of his rights — Indian consular officers to be given access to him and be allowed to arrange for his legal representation.

Appropriate remedy is effective review and reconsideration of conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav — Full weight to be given to the effect of violation of rights set forth in Article 36 — Choice of means left to Pakistan — Pakistan to take all measures to provide for effective review and reconsideration, including, if necessary, by enacting appropriate legislation — Continued stay of execution constitutes condition for effective review and reconsideration of conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav.

JUDGMENT

Present: President YUSUF; Vice-President XUE; Judges TOMKA, ABRAHAM, BENNOUNA,
CANÇADO TRINDADE, DONOGHUE, GAJA, SEBUTINDE, BHANDARI, ROBINSON,

CRAWFORD, GEVORGIAN, SALAM, IWASAWA; Judge ad hoc JILLANI;
Deputy-Registrar FOMÉTÉ.

In the Jadhav case,

between

the Republic of India,

represented by

Mr. Deepak Mittal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, as Agent;

Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Additional Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, as Co-Agent;

Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate,

as Senior Counsel;

H.E. Mr. Venu Rajamony, Ambassador of the Republic of India to the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

Mr. Luther M. Rangreji, Counsellor, Embassy of India in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Adviser;

Ms Chetna N. Rai, Advocate,

Ms Arundhati Dattaraya Kelkar, Advocate,

as Junior Counsel;

Mr. S. Senthil Kumar, Legal Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, as Advisers,

and

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

represented by

Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Attorney General for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as Agent;

Mr. Mohammad Faisal, Director General (South Asia and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

as Co-Agent;

H.E. Mr. Shujjat Ali Rathore, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
Ms Fareha Bugti, Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

Mr. Junaid Sadiq, First Secretary, Embassy of Pakistan in the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

Mr. Kamran Dhangal, Deputy Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

Mr. Ahmad Irfan Aslam, Head of the International Dispute Unit, Office of the Attorney General;

Mr. Mian Shaoor Ahmad, Consultant, Office of the Attorney General;

Mr. Tahmasp Razvi, Office of the Attorney General;

Mr. Khurram Shahzad Mughal, Assistant Consultant, Ministry of Law and Justice;

Mr. Khawar Qureshi, QC, member of the Bar of England and Wales,

as Legal Counsel and Advocate;

Ms Catriona Nicol, Associate, McNair Chambers,

as Junior Counsel;

Mr. Joseph Dyke, Associate, McNair Chambers,

as Legal Assistant;

Brigadier (retired) Anthony Paphiti,

Colonel (retired) Charles Garraway, CBE,

as Legal Experts,

THE COURT,

composed as above,

after deliberation,

delivers the following Judgment:

1. On 8 May 2017, the Government of the Republic of India (hereinafter “India”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Islamic Republic of

Pakistan (hereinafter “Pakistan”) alleging violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (hereinafter the “Vienna Convention”) “in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian national, Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav”, sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan.

2. In its Application, India seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (hereinafter the “Optional Protocol”).

3. On 8 May 2017, India also submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures, referring to Article 41 of the Statute and to Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court.

4. The Registrar immediately communicated to the Government of Pakistan the Application, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court, and the Request for the indication of provisional measures, pursuant to Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court. He also notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the filing of the Application and the Request by India.

5. By a letter dated 9 May 2017 addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the President of the Court, exercising the powers conferred upon him under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of

Court, called upon the Pakistani Government, pending the Court’s decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, “to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on this Request to have its appropriate effects”. A copy of that letter was transmitted to the Agent of India.

6. By letter dated 10 May 2017, the Registrar informed all Member States of the United Nations of the filing of the Application and the Request for the indication of provisional measures by India.

7. In conformity with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, the Registrar later notified the Members of the United Nations, through the Secretary-General, of the filing of the Application, by transmission of the printed bilingual text.

8. By an Order of 18 May 2017, the Court indicated the following provisional measures:

“Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings and shall inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of the present Order.”

It further decided that, “until the Court has given its final decision, it shall remain seised of the matters which form the subject-matter of this Order”.

9. By a letter of 8 June 2017, the Co-Agent of Pakistan informed the Court that “the

Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ha[d] instructed the relevant departments of the government to give effect to the Order of the Court dated 18 May 2017”.

10. By an Order dated 13 June 2017, the President of the Court fixed 13 September 2017 and 13 December 2017 as the respective time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by India and of a Counter-Memorial by Pakistan. Those pleadings were filed within the time-limits so fixed.

11. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of Pakistani nationality, Pakistan proceeded to exercise the right conferred upon it by Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case; it chose Mr. Tassaduq Hussain Jillani.

12. Pursuant to the instructions of the Court under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar addressed to States parties to the Vienna Convention and to States parties to the Optional Protocol the notifications provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court.

13. By an Order dated 17 January 2018, the Court authorized the submission of a Reply by India and a Rejoinder by Pakistan and fixed 17 April 2018 and 17 July 2018 as the respective time-limits for the filing of those pleadings. The Reply and the Rejoinder were filed within the time-limits thus fixed.

14. Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Court, after ascertaining the views of the Parties, decided that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed would be made accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings.

15. By letters received in the Registry on 18 February 2019, the first day of hearings, Pakistan informed the Court of its intention to call an expert and to present audio-visual material during the oral proceedings. Further, Pakistan expressed its intention to produce a new document. By letters dated 19 February 2019, the Registrar informed the Parties that the Court, having ascertained the views of India, had decided that it would not be appropriate to grant Pakistan’s requests in the circumstances of the case.

16. Public hearings were held from 18 to 21 February 2019, at which the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of:

For India:

Mr. Deepak Mittal,
Mr. Harish Salve.

For Pakistan:

Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan,
Mr. Khawar Qureshi.

17. In the Application, the following claims were made by India:

“(1) A relief by way of immediate suspension of the sentence of death awarded to the accused.

(2) A relief by way of restitution in integrum by declaring that the sentence of the military court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36 paragraph 1 (b), and in defiance of elementary human rights of an accused which are also to be given effect as mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention; and

(3) Restraining Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the military court, and directing it to take steps to annul the decision of the military court as may be available to it under the law in Pakistan.

(4) If Pakistan is unable to annul the decision, then this Court to declare the decision illegal being violative of international law and treaty rights and restrain Pakistan from acting in violation of the Vienna Convention and international law by giving effect to the sentence or the conviction in any manner, and directing it to release the convicted Indian national forthwith.”

18. In the written proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties:

On behalf of the Government of India, in the Memorial:

“For these reasons, the submissions of the Government of India, respectfully request this Court to adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in egregious breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, in:

(i) Failing to inform India, without delay, of the arrest and/or detention of Jadhav,

(ii) Failing to inform Jadhav of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,

(iii) Declining access to Jadhav by consular officers of India, contrary to their right to visit Jadhav, while under custody, detention or in prison, and to converse and correspond with him, or to arrange for his legal representation.

And that pursuant to the foregoing,

(i) Declare that the sentence of the Military Court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36

paragraph 1 (b), and in defiance of elementary human rights of Jadhav, which are also to be given effect as mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention;

(ii) Declare that India is entitled to restitutio in integrum;

(iii) Restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction in any manner, and direct it to release the Indian National, Jadhav, forthwith, and to direct Pakistan to facilitate his safe passage to India;

(iv) In the alternative, and if this Court were to find that Jadhav is not to be released, then restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the Military Court, and direct it to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, as may be available to it under the laws in force in Pakistan, and direct a trial under the ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding his confession that was recorded without affording consular access, in strict conformity with the provisions of the ICCPR, with full consular access and with a right to India to arrange for his legal representation.”

These submissions were confirmed in the Reply.

On behalf of the Government of Pakistan, in the Counter-Memorial:

“For the reasons set out in this Counter-Memorial, Pakistan requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the claims of India, as advanced through its Application and its Memorial, are rejected.”

in the Rejoinder:

“For the reasons set out in this Rejoinder, as well as those set out in the Counter-Memorial, Pakistan requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the claims of India, as advanced through its Application, its Memorial and its Reply, are rejected.”

19. At the oral proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties:

On behalf of the Government of India,

“(1) The Government of India requests this Court to adjudge and declare that, Pakistan acted in egregious breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (Vienna Convention) in:

(i) Failing to inform India, without delay, of the detention of Jadhav;

(ii) Failing to inform Jadhav of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963;

(iii) Declining access to Jadhav by consular officers of India, contrary to their right to visit Jadhav, while under custody, detention or in prison, and to converse and correspond with him, or to arrange for his legal representation.

And that pursuant to the foregoing,

(2) Declare that:

(a) the sentence by Pakistan’s Military Court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the
Vienna Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36

paragraph 1 (b), and in defiance of elementary human rights of Jadhav, which are also to be given effect as mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention;

(b) India is entitled to restitutio in integrum;

(3) Annul the decision of the Military Court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction in any manner; and

(4) Direct it to release the Indian National, Jadhav, forthwith, and to facilitate his safe passage to India;

(5) In the alternative, and if this Court were to find that Jadhav is not to be released, then

(i) annul the decision of the Military Court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the Military Court,

or in the further alternative,

(ii) direct it to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, as may be available to it under the laws in force in Pakistan, and in either event,

(iii) direct a trial under the ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding his confession that was recorded without affording consular access, and in strict conformity with the provisions of the ICCPR, with full consular access and with a right to India to arrange for his legal representation.”

On behalf of the Government of Pakistan,

“The Islamic Republic of Pakistan respectfully requests the Court, for the reasons set out in Pakistan’s written pleadings and in its oral submissions made in the course of these hearings, to declare India’s claim inadmissible. Further or in the alternative, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan respectfully requests the Court to dismiss India’s claim in its entirety.”

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20. The Court observes that the Parties disagree on several facts relating to the dispute before it. Their points of disagreement will be mentioned where necessary.

21. Since 3 March 2016, an individual named Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav (hereinafter

“Mr. Jadhav”) has been in the custody of Pakistani authorities. The circumstances of his apprehension remain in dispute between the Parties. According to India, Mr. Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran, where he was residing and carrying out business activities after his retirement from the Indian Navy. He was subsequently transferred to Pakistan and detained for interrogation. Pakistan contends that Mr. Jadhav, whom it accuses of performing acts of espionage and terrorism on behalf of India, was arrested in Balochistan near the border with Iran after illegally entering Pakistani territory. Pakistan explains that, at the moment of his arrest, Mr. Jadhav was in possession of an Indian passport bearing the name “Hussein Mubarak Patel”. India denies these allegations.

22. On 25 March 2016, Pakistan raised the issue with the High Commissioner of India in Islamabad and released a video in which Mr. Jadhav appears to confess to his involvement in acts of espionage and terrorism in Pakistan at the behest of India’s foreign intelligence agency “Research and Analysis Wing” (also referred to by its acronym “RAW”). The circumstances under which the video was recorded are unknown to the Court. On the same day, Pakistan notified the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations of the matter.

23. Also on the same day, by means of a Note Verbale from the High Commission of India in Islamabad to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, India noted the “purported arrest of an Indian” and requested consular access “at the earliest” to “the said individual”. Subsequently, and at least until 9 October 2017, India sent more than ten Notes Verbales in which it identified Mr. Jadhav as its national and sought consular access to him.

24. On 8 April 2016, Pakistani police authorities registered a “First Information Report” (hereinafter “FIR”), which is an official document recording information on the alleged commission of criminal offences. Pakistan explains that, once registered, a FIR enables police authorities to initiate an investigation. In this case, the FIR gave details of Mr. Jadhav’s alleged involvement in espionage and terrorism activities and stated that he was “under interrogation” by Pakistani military authorities. A supplementary FIR was said to have been registered on 6 September 2016. On 22 July 2016, Mr. Jadhav made a confessional statement, which was allegedly recorded before a magistrate.

25. The trial of Mr. Jadhav started on 21 September 2016 and, according to Pakistan, was conducted before a Field General Court Martial. Various details of the trial were made public by means of a press release and a statement dated 10 and 14 April 2017 respectively. On the basis of this information (from the only source made available to the Court), it appears that Mr. Jadhav was tried under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act of 1952 and Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923. According to Pakistan, after the trial had begun, he was given an additional period of three weeks in order to facilitate the preparation of his defence, for which “a law qualified field officer” was specifically appointed. All witness statements were allegedly recorded under oath in the presence of Mr. Jadhav, who was allowed to put questions to the witnesses. During the trial, a law officer of Pakistan’s Judge Advocate General Branch “remained a part of the Court”.

26. On 2 January 2017, the Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Foreign Affairs sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations informing him of Mr. Jadhav’s arrest and confession, which, in his view, confirmed India’s involvement in activities aimed at “destabilizing Pakistan”.

27. On 23 January 2017, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan sent a “Letter of

Assistance for Criminal Investigation against Indian National Kulbhushan Sudhair Jadhev” to the High Commission of India in Islamabad, seeking, in particular, support in “obtaining evidence, material and record for the criminal investigation” of Mr. Jadhav’s activities. The letter referred to India’s “earlier assurances of assistance, on a reciprocal basis, in criminal/terrorism matters”, as well as resolution 1373 (2001) adopted by the Security Council concerning measures to prevent and suppress threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. Pakistan claims that, despite reiterated reminders, prior to the hearings before the Court, it has received no

“substantive response” from India regarding this request. India, for its part, refers to two
Notes Verbales dated 19 June and 11 December 2017, respectively, in which it stated that Pakistan’s request had no legal basis and was not, in any event, supported by credible evidence.

28. On 21 March 2017, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan sent a Note Verbale to the High Commission of India in Islamabad indicating that India’s request for consular access would be considered “in the light of Indian side’s response to Pakistan’s request for assistance in investigation process and early dispensation of justice”. On 31 March 2017, India replied that

“[c]onsular access to Mr. Jadhav would be an essential pre-requisite in order to verify the facts and understand the circumstances of his presence in Pakistan”. The Parties raised similar arguments in subsequent diplomatic exchanges.

29. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan announced that Mr. Jadhav had been sentenced to death. This was followed by a press statement issued on 14 April 2017 by the Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs. In addition to the above-mentioned details of Mr. Jadhav’s trial (see paragraph 25 above), the statement referred to the availability of the following means of redress: an appeal before a Military Appellate Court within 40 days of the sentence; a mercy petition addressed to the Chief of Army Staff within 60 days of the Military Appellate Court’s decision; and a similar petition addressed to the President of Pakistan within 90 days of the decision of the Chief of Army Staff.

30. On 26 April 2017, the High Commission of India in Islamabad transmitted to Pakistan, on behalf of Mr. Jadhav’s mother, an “appeal” under Section 133 (B) and a petition to the Federal Government of Pakistan under Section 131 of the Pakistan Army Act. India asserts that, because Pakistan denied it access to the case file, both documents had to be prepared on the sole basis of information available in the public domain.

31. On 22 June 2017, the Inter Services Public Relations of Pakistan issued a press release announcing that Mr. Jadhav had made a mercy petition to the Chief of Army Staff after the rejection of his appeal by the Military Appellate Court. India claims that it has received no clear information on the circumstances of this appeal or the status of any appeal or petition concerning Mr. Jadhav’s sentence. The above-mentioned press release also referred to another confessional statement by Mr. Jadhav recorded on a date and in circumstances that remain unknown to the Court.

32. On 10 November 2017, Pakistan informed India of its decision to allow Mr. Jadhav’s wife to visit him on “humanitarian grounds”. The offer was extended to Mr. Jadhav’s mother on

13 November 2017. At India’s request, Pakistan gave assurances that it would ensure the free movement, safety and well-being of the visitors and allow the presence of a diplomatic representative from India. The visit took place on 25 December 2017; however, the Parties disagree over the extent to which Pakistan gave effect to its assurances.

II. JURISDICTION

33. India and Pakistan have been parties to the Vienna Convention since 28 December 1977 and 14 May 1969 respectively. They also were, at the time of the filing of the Application, parties to the Optional Protocol without any reservations or declarations.

34. India seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute and on Article I of the Optional Protocol, which provides:

“Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.”

35. The present dispute concerns the question of consular assistance with regard to the arrest, detention, trial and sentencing of Mr. Jadhav. The Court notes that Pakistan has not contested that the dispute relates to the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention.

36. The Court also notes that, in its Application, written pleadings and final submissions, India asks the Court to declare that Pakistan has violated Mr. Jadhav’s “elementary human rights”, “which are also to be given effect as mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (hereinafter the “Covenant”). The Covenant entered into force for India on 10 July 1979 and for Pakistan on 23 September 2010. In this respect, the Court observes that its jurisdiction in the present case arises from Article I of the Optional Protocol and therefore does not extend to the determination of breaches of international law obligations other than those under the Vienna Convention (cf. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015 (I), pp. 45-46, para. 85, and p. 68, para. 153).

37. This conclusion does not preclude the Court from taking into account other obligations under international law in so far as they are relevant to the interpretation of the Vienna Convention (cf. ibid., pp. 45-46, para. 85).

38. In light of the above, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction under Article I of the
Optional Protocol to entertain India’s claims based on alleged violations of the Vienna Convention.

III. ADMISSIBILITY

39. Pakistan has raised three objections to the admissibility of India’s Application. These objections are based on India’s alleged abuse of process, abuse of rights and unlawful conduct. The Court will now address each of these in turn.

A. First objection: abuse of process

40. In its first objection to the admissibility of India’s Application, Pakistan asks the Court to rule that India has abused the Court’s procedures. Pakistan advances two main arguments to this end.

41. First, it alleges that when requesting the indication of provisional measures on 8 May

2017, India failed to draw the Court’s attention to the existence of what Pakistan regards as “highly material facts”. More specifically, it refers to the existence of a constitutional right to lodge a clemency petition within a period of 150 days after Mr. Jadhav’s death sentence, which would have stayed his execution until at least that deadline. According to Pakistan, this possibility was made public by means of a press statement dated 14 April 2017 (see paragraph 29 above).

42. Secondly, Pakistan submits that, before instituting proceedings on 8 May 2017, India had failed to “give consideration” to other dispute settlement mechanisms envisaged in Articles II and III of the Optional Protocol. In this connection, Pakistan claims that, in disregard of these provisions, it was not formally notified of the existence of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention until the institution of proceedings on 8 May 2017.

43. India rejects these allegations. With reference to Pakistan’s first argument, it claims that the fact that the Court indicated provisional measures in relation to Mr. Jadhav’s situation excludes the possibility of an abuse of process by means of India’s request for such measures. With reference to Pakistan’s second argument, it asserts that Articles II and III of the Optional Protocol do not contain preconditions to the Court’s jurisdiction under Article I.

44. The Court observes, in relation to Pakistan’s first argument, that in its Order indicating provisional measures it took into account the possible consequences for Mr. Jadhav’s situation of the availability under Pakistani law of any appeal or petition procedure, including the clemency petition to which Pakistan refers in support of its claim (Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Provisional Measures, Order of 18 May 2017, I.C.J. Reports 2017, pp. 244-245, paras. 53-56). In this regard, it concluded inter alia that “[t]here [was] considerable uncertainty as to when a decision on any appeal or petition could be rendered and, if the sentence is maintained, as to when Mr. Jadhav could be executed” (ibid., para. 54). Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that India abused its procedural rights when requesting the Court to indicate provisional measures in this case.

45. In relation to the second argument, the Court notes that none of the provisions of the

Optional Protocol relied on by Pakistan contain preconditions to the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction.

46. Article II reads as follows:

“The parties may agree, within a period of two months after one party has notified its opinion to the other that a dispute exists, to resort not to the International Court of Justice but to an arbitral tribunal. After the expiry of the said period, either party may bring the dispute before the Court by an application.”

According to Article III:

“1. Within the same period of two months, the parties may agree to adopt a conciliation procedure before resorting to the International Court of Justice.

2. The conciliation commission shall make its recommendations within five months after its appointment. If its recommendations are not accepted by the parties to the dispute within two months after they have been delivered, either party may bring the dispute before the Court by an application.”

47. The Court interpreted these provisions in the case concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), where it ruled that Articles II and III of the Optional Protocols to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations do not lay down a

“precondition of the applicability of the precise and categorical provision contained in Article I establishing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in respect of disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention in question. Articles II and III provide only that, as a substitute for recourse to the Court, the parties may agree upon resort either to arbitration or to conciliation.” (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, pp. 25-26, para. 48; emphasis in the original.)

48. It follows that India was under no obligation in the present case to consider other dispute settlement mechanisms prior to instituting proceedings before the Court on 8 May 2017. Thus, Pakistan’s objection based on the alleged non-compliance by India with Articles II and III of the Optional Protocol cannot be upheld.

49. The Court recalls that “only in exceptional circumstances should [it] reject a claim based on a valid title of jurisdiction on the ground of abuse of process. In this regard, there has to be clear evidence that the applicant’s conduct amounts to an abuse of process” (Certain Iranian Assets

(Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 13 February 2019, para. 113, citing Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2018 (I), p. 336, para. 150). The Court does not consider that in the present case there are such exceptional circumstances that would warrant rejecting India’s claims on the ground of abuse of process.

50. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pakistan’s first objection to the admissibility of India’s Application must be rejected.

B. Second objection: abuse of rights

51. In its second objection to the admissibility of India’s Application, Pakistan requests the Court to rule that India has abused various rights it has under international law.

52. In its pleadings, Pakistan has based this objection on three main arguments. First, it refers to India’s refusal to “provide evidence” of Mr. Jadhav’s Indian nationality by means of his “actual passport in his real name”, even though it has a duty to do so. Secondly, Pakistan mentions India’s failure to engage with its request for assistance in relation to the criminal investigations into Mr. Jadhav’s activities. Thirdly, Pakistan alleges that India authorized Mr. Jadhav to cross the Indian border with a “false cover name authentic passport” in order to conduct espionage and terrorist activities. In relation to these arguments, Pakistan invokes various counter-terrorism obligations set out in Security Council resolution 1373 (2001).

53. India refers to what it views as contradictions between Pakistan’s arguments before the Court regarding the question of Mr. Jadhav’s nationality, on the one hand, and the Respondent’s own behaviour after his arrest, on the other. It relies inter alia on the allusion made in Pakistan’s diplomatic exchanges to Mr. Jadhav’s membership of India’s “Research and Analysis Wing” and, more specifically, to his Indian nationality. India also cites the absence of a mutual legal assistance treaty, from which it concludes that it has no obligation to co-operate with Pakistan’s criminal investigations, and explains that, in any event, the right of consular assistance under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention is not dependent on a party’s compliance with any obligation of this kind. Lastly, India considers Pakistan’s allegations concerning Mr. Jadhav’s unlawful activities to be unfounded.

54. In its Judgment on the preliminary objections in the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), the Court ruled that “abuse of rights cannot be invoked as a ground of inadmissibility when the establishment of the right in question is properly a matter for the merits” (Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2018 (I), p. 337, para. 151).

55. The Court notes, however, that by raising the argument that India has not provided the

Court with his “actual passport in his real name”, Pakistan appears to suggest that India has failed to prove Mr. Jadhav’s nationality. This argument is relevant to the claims based on Article 36 of the Vienna Convention in relation to Mr. Jadhav, and therefore, must be addressed at this stage.

56. In this respect, the Court observes that the evidence before it shows that both Parties have considered Mr. Jadhav to be an Indian national. Indeed, Pakistan has so described Mr. Jadhav on various occasions, including in its “Letter of Assistance for Criminal Investigation against Indian National Kulbhushan Sudhair Jadhev”. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the evidence before it leaves no room for doubt that Mr. Jadhav is of Indian nationality.

57. As indicated above, the second and third arguments advanced by Pakistan in support of its second objection to the admissibility of the Application are based on various alleged breaches of

India’s obligations under Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). In particular, Pakistan refers to India’s failure to respond to Pakistan’s request for mutual legal assistance with its criminal investigations into Mr. Jadhav’s espionage and terrorism activities, as well as the issuance of what

Pakistan describes as a “false cover name authentic passport”. The Court observes that, in essence, Pakistan seems to argue that India cannot request consular assistance with respect to Mr. Jadhav, while at the same time it has violated other obligations under international law as a result of the above-mentioned acts. While Pakistan has not clearly explained the link between these allegations and the rights invoked by India on the merits, in the Court’s view, such allegations are properly a matter for the merits and therefore cannot be invoked as a ground of inadmissibility.

58. For these reasons, the Court finds that Pakistan’s second objection to the admissibility of India’s Application must be rejected. The second and third arguments advanced by Pakistan will be addressed when dealing with the merits (see paragraphs 121-124 below).

C. Third objection: India’s alleged unlawful conduct

59. In its third objection to the admissibility of India’s Application, Pakistan asks the Court to dismiss the Application on the basis of India’s alleged unlawful conduct. Relying on the doctrine of “clean hands” and the principles of “ex turpi causa [non oritur actio]” and “ex injuria jus non oritur”, Pakistan contends that India has failed to respond to its request for assistance with the investigation into Mr. Jadhav’s activities, that it has provided him with a “false cover name authentic passport” and, more generally, that it is responsible for Mr. Jadhav’s espionage and terrorism activities in Pakistan.

60. India considers that Pakistan’s allegations lack merit and contends that, in any event, a receiving State’s duty to comply with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention is not conditional on its allegations against an arrested individual.

61. The Court does not consider that an objection based on the “clean hands” doctrine may by itself render an application based on a valid title of jurisdiction inadmissible. It recalls that in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), it ruled that “even if it were shown that the Applicant’s conduct was not beyond reproach, this would not be sufficient per se to uphold the objection to admissibility raised by the Respondent on the basis of the ‘clean hands’ doctrine” (Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 13 February 2019, para. 122). The Court therefore concludes that Pakistan’s objection based on the said doctrine must be rejected.

62. The Court further notes that Pakistan has relied on the Judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice (hereinafter “PCIJ”) in the Factory at Chorzów case in order to advance an argument based on a principle to which it refers as “ex turpi causa [non oritur actio]”. However, in that case the PCIJ referred to a principle

“generally accepted in the jurisprudence of international arbitration, as well as by municipal courts, that one Party cannot avail himself of the fact that the other has not fulfilled some obligation . . . if the former Party has, by some illegal act, prevented the latter from fulfilling the obligation in question” (Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 31; see also Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 67, para. 110).

63. With regard to this principle, the Court is of the view that Pakistan has not explained how any of the wrongful acts allegedly committed by India may have prevented Pakistan from fulfilling its obligation in respect of the provision of consular assistance to Mr. Jadhav. The Court therefore finds that Pakistan’s objection based on the principle of “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” cannot be upheld.

64. The above finding leads the Court to a similar conclusion with regard to the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur, which stands for the proposition that unlawful conduct cannot modify the law applicable in the relations between the parties (see Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 76, para. 133). In the view of the Court, this principle is inapposite to the circumstances of the present case.

65. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pakistan’s third objection to the admissibility of India’s Application must be rejected.

66. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the three objections to the admissibility of the Application raised by Pakistan must be rejected and that India’s Application is admissible.

IV. THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION

ON CONSULAR RELATIONS

67. The Court recalls that Pakistan does not expressly raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. It notes, however, that Pakistan does advance several contentions concerning the applicability of certain provisions of the Vienna Convention to the case of Mr. Jadhav. The Court considers it appropriate to address these arguments first.

A. Applicability of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

68. The Court notes that Pakistan’s contentions regarding the applicability of the Vienna Convention are threefold. First, Pakistan argues that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention does not apply in “prima facie cases of espionage”. Secondly, it contends that customary international law governs cases of espionage in consular relations and allows States to make exceptions to the provisions on consular access contained in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. Thirdly, Pakistan maintains that it is the 2008 Agreement on Consular Access between India and Pakistan

(hereinafter the “2008 Agreement”), rather than Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, which regulates consular access in the present case. The Court will examine each of these arguments in turn.

1. Alleged exception to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention based on charges of espionage

69. Pakistan argues that the Vienna Convention does not apply in cases of individuals “who manifest from their own conduct and the materials in their possession a prima facie case of espionage activity”. In its view, the travaux préparatoires of the Vienna Convention demonstrate that cases of espionage were not considered to fall within the scope of that instrument, and that matters of espionage and national security were considered capable of constituting a “justifiable limitation” to a sending State’s “freedom to communicate” with its arrested nationals in the receiving State. Pakistan maintains that the drafters of the Vienna Convention understood that there would be matters pertaining to consular relations that would not be regulated by the Convention.

70. India considers that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention does not admit of any exceptions. In its view, the travaux préparatoires show that no exception was made to the Convention with regard to cases of espionage, even though the question of espionage was discussed during the drafting process. According to India, the travaux préparatoires establish that the Convention’s drafters considered espionage to be covered by the principles governing consular access. India argues that if the reasoning espoused by Pakistan were to be carried to its logical conclusion, a receiving State could justify the denial of the rights provided for by the Vienna Convention by alleging acts of espionage.

71. The Court notes that India is not a party to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and that, while Pakistan signed that Convention on 29 April 1970, it has not ratified it. The Court will interpret the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations according to the customary rules of treaty interpretation which, as it has stated on many occasions, are reflected in Articles 31 and

32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (see, for example, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 48, para. 83; Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 232, para. 153). Under these rules of customary international law, the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to their terms in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention. To confirm the meaning resulting from that process, or to remove ambiguity or obscurity, or to avoid a manifestly absurd or unreasonable result, recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, which include the preparatory work of the Convention and the circumstances of its conclusion.

(a) Interpretation of Article 36 in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms

72. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides as follows:

“Article 36

Communication and contact with nationals of the sending State

1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:

(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;

(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;

(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.”
-22-

73. The Court observes that neither Article 36 nor any other provision of the Vienna Convention contains a reference to cases of espionage. Nor does Article 36 exclude from its scope, when read in its context and in light of the object and purpose of the Convention, certain categories of persons, such as those suspected of espionage.

74. The object and purpose of the Vienna Convention as stated in its preamble is to

“contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations”. The purpose of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Convention as indicated in its introductory sentence is to “facilitat[e] the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State”. Consequently, consular officers may in all cases exercise the rights relating to consular access set out in that provision for the nationals of the sending State. It would run counter to the purpose of that provision if the rights it provides could be disregarded when the receiving State alleges that a foreign national in its custody was involved in acts of espionage.

75. The Court thus concludes that, when interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the Vienna Convention in their context and in the light of its object and purpose, Article 36 of the Convention does not exclude from its scope certain categories of persons, such as those suspected of espionage.

(b) The travaux préparatoires of Article 36

76. In view of the conclusion above, the Court need not, in principle, resort to supplementary means of interpretation, such as the travaux préparatoires of the Vienna Convention and the circumstances of its conclusion, to determine the meaning of Article 36 of the Convention. However, as in other cases (see, for example, Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Preliminary Objections, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 2018 (I), p. 322, para. 96; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 653, para. 53), the Court may have recourse to the travaux préparatoires in order to confirm its interpretation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.

(i) International Law Commission (1960)

77. During the discussions of the International Law Commission on the topic of “consular intercourse and immunities”, there was no suggestion that Article 36 would not apply to certain categories of persons, such as those suspected of espionage.

78. Draft Article 30 A, which served as a basis for Article 36 of the Convention, was discussed by the Commission in 1960. It provided, in the relevant part, that “[t]he local authorities shall inform the consul of the sending State without delay when any national of that State is detained in custody within his district” (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, Vol. I, p. 42, para. 1). Among the issues discussed in relation to this provision was the question whether and to what extent it was conceivable for consular notification to be made “without delay” in countries which had a system of detention incommunicado, whereby the person might be held isolated from the outside world for a certain period at the beginning of a criminal investigation.

79. It was in the context of this debate regarding the phrase “without delay” that Mr. Tunkin, a member of the Commission, referred to “espionage cases”:

“Mr. TUNKIN felt it might be best to delete the words ‘without delay’. There were cases in which it was impossible to inform the consul immediately of the arrest or detention of a national. Sometimes — for instance in espionage cases, where there might be accomplices at large — it might be desirable that the local authorities should not be obliged to inform the consul.” (Ibid., p. 58, para. 47.)

80. With regard to cases of espionage, the Chairman of the Commission made the following
remark:

“The CHAIRMAN remarked that a statement of a general principle of law could not possibly cover all conceivable cases. If the Commission went into the question of whether cases of espionage should be made an exception the whole principle of consular protection and communication with nationals would have to be re-opened.” (Ibid., p. 58, para. 48.)

81. The Court notes that the Commission did not go into the question of espionage at its subsequent meetings and that the “principle of consular protection and communication with nationals” was not reopened.

82. The Court further notes that cases of espionage were also mentioned in the context of the Commission’s discussions on the possible inclusion of a reference to security zones in the proposed provision. However, there was no suggestion of consular access not being granted in cases of espionage because of national security concerns.

83. During its 1961 session, the Commission decided to change the words “without delay” to “without undue delay” (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1961, Vol. I, pp. 242-245). The Court observes that this decision had no implication for the scope of draft Article 36. The

Commission’s commentary to draft Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), merely states that “[t]he expression ‘without undue delay’ used in paragraph 1 (b) allows for cases where it is necessary to hold a person incommunicado for a certain period for the purposes of the criminal investigation” (Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Consular Relations, Vienna, 4 March-22 April 1963 (United Nations, doc. A/CONF.25/16/Add.1), Vol. II, p. 24, para. 6).

(ii) The Vienna Conference (1963)

84. During the United Nations Conference on Consular Relations held in Vienna from 4 March to 22 April 1963, the question of espionage was raised in relation to the words “without undue delay” in draft Article 36:
-24-

“The CHAIRMAN invited Mr. Žourek [the former Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission on this topic] to explain why the International Law Commission had included the words ‘without undue delay’ in its draft . . .

Mr. ŽOUREK (Expert) said that . . . [t]hey were intended to allow for cases in which the receiving State’s police might wish to held [sic] a criminal in custody for a time. For example, if a smuggler was suspected of controlling a network, the police might wish to keep his arrest secret until they had been able to find his contacts. Similar measures might be adopted in case of espionage.” (Ibid., Vol. I, p. 338, paras. 8-9.)

85. The explanation given by Mr. Žourek suggests that while the charge of espionage was thought to be relevant in determining the appropriate period of time within which notification to the sending State should be made by the receiving State, cases of espionage were not excluded from the scope of the Vienna Convention. The Court further notes that in the course of the discussion on proposed amendments to draft Article 36, including a proposal by the United Kingdom to delete the word “undue” from the phrase “without undue delay” which was eventually adopted (ibid., Vol. I, p. 348), it was not suggested that certain categories of persons, such as those suspected of espionage, were to be excluded from the protection of the Convention.

86. The travaux préparatoires thus confirm the interpretation that Article 36 does not exclude from its scope certain categories of persons, such as those suspected of espionage.

2. Alleged espionage exception under customary international law

87. According to Pakistan, State practice establishes that at the time of the adoption of the Vienna Convention in 1963, there was no rule of customary international law which made consular access obligatory in the case of individuals accused of espionage. Pakistan argues that there was a rule of customary international law in 1963 that prima facie cases of espionage constituted an exception to the right of consular access. It cites the preamble of the Vienna Convention, which affirms that “the rules of customary international law continue to govern matters not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention”, in support of its conclusion that the rule of customary international law was unaffected by the Convention and continues to prevail over it.

88. India maintains that the instances referred to by Pakistan, wherein States have denied consular access to individuals suspected of espionage or have granted them access after a considerable delay, cannot affect the interpretation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. In its view, these instances are “random examples” and do not constitute an established practice. According to India, Pakistan is wrong to suggest that customary international law prevails over the plain language of Article 36 of the Convention and that an exclusion is created for allegations of espionage.

89. The Court notes that the preamble of the Vienna Convention states that “the rules of customary international law continue to govern matters not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention” (emphasis added). Article 36 of the Convention expressly regulates the question of consular access to, and communication with, nationals of the sending State and makes no exception with regard to cases of espionage. The Court recalls that India and Pakistan have been parties to the Vienna Convention since 1977 and 1969 respectively (see paragraph 33 above) and that neither Party attached any reservation or declaration to the provisions of the Convention. The Court therefore considers that Article 36 of the Convention, and not customary international law, governs the matter at hand in the relations between the Parties.

90. Having reached this conclusion, the Court does not find it necessary to determine whether, when the Vienna Convention was adopted in 1963, there existed the rule of customary international law that Pakistan advances.

3. Relevance of the 2008 Agreement on Consular Access between India and Pakistan

91. The 2008 Agreement provides, in its relevant parts, as follows:

“Agreement on Consular Access

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, desirous of furthering the objective of humane treatment of nationals of either country arrested, detained or imprisoned in the other country, have agreed to reciprocal consular facilities as follows:

……………………………………………………….

(ii) Immediate notification of any arrest, detention or imprisonment of any person of the other country shall be provided to the respective High Commission.

……………………………………………………….

(iv) Each Government shall provide consular access within three months to nationals of one country, under arrest, detention or imprisonment in the other country.

(v) Both Governments agree to release and repatriate persons within one month of confirmation of their national status and completion of sentences.

(vi) In case of arrest, detention or sentence made on political or security grounds, each side may examine the case on its merits.”

92. Pakistan maintains that it is the 2008 Agreement rather than the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that governs the question of consular access between India and Pakistan, including in the present case. In Pakistan’s view, the nature and circumstances of Mr. Jadhav’s alleged espionage and terrorist activities bring his arrest squarely within the national security qualification contained in point (vi) of the Agreement. Pakistan thus argues that it was entitled to consider the question of consular access to Mr. Jadhav “on its merits” in the particular circumstances of this case. It disputes the interpretation put forward by India, according to which point (vi) should be read in conjunction with point (v) concerning the early release and repatriation of persons (see paragraph 93 below). In Pakistan’s view, point (vi) of the 2008 Agreement is fully consistent with Article 73 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and with Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, because the 2008 Agreement can properly be seen as “supplementing” or “amplifying” the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular

Relations.

93. India emphasizes that its claims are based solely on the Vienna Convention and maintains that the existence of a bilateral agreement is irrelevant to the assertion of the right to consular access under the Convention. It contends that bilateral treaties cannot modify the rights and corresponding obligations which are set out in Article 36 of the Convention. India argues that there is nothing in the language of the 2008 Agreement which would suggest that India or Pakistan ever intended to derogate from Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. India maintains that Pakistan’s interpretation would be contrary to Article 73 of the Vienna Convention. As for point (vi) of the 2008 Agreement, India takes the view that the phrase “examine the case on its merits” applies to the agreement to release and repatriate persons within one month of the confirmation of their national status and completion of sentences as provided for in point (v), and that, as an exception to this, India and Pakistan reserve the right to examine on the merits the case for the release and repatriation of persons upon the completion of their sentences when their arrest, detention or sentence was made on political or security grounds.

94. The Court recalls that point (vi) of the 2008 Agreement provides that “[i]n case of arrest, detention or sentence made on political or security grounds, each side may examine the case on its merits”. It also recalls that, in the preamble of the Agreement, the Parties declared that they were “desirous of furthering the objective of humane treatment of nationals of either country arrested, detained or imprisoned in the other country”. The Court is of the view that point (vi) of the Agreement cannot be read as denying consular access in the case of an arrest, detention or sentence made on political or security grounds. Given the importance of the rights concerned in guaranteeing the “humane treatment of nationals of either country arrested, detained or imprisoned in the other country”, if the Parties had intended to restrict in some way the rights guaranteed by Article 36, one would expect such an intention to be unequivocally reflected in the provisions of the Agreement. That is not the case.

95. Moreover, as noted in paragraph 74 above, with reference to the alleged exception of espionage in the Vienna Convention, any derogation from Article 36 of the Vienna Convention for political or security grounds may render the right related to consular access meaningless as it would give the receiving State the possibility of denying such access.

96. Account should also be taken of Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention for the purpose of interpreting the 2008 Agreement. This paragraph provides that “[n]othing in the present Convention shall preclude States from concluding international agreements confirming or supplementing or extending or amplifying the provisions thereof”. The language of this paragraph indicates that it refers to subsequent agreements to be concluded by parties to the Vienna Convention. The Court notes that the Vienna Convention was drafted with a view to establishing, to the extent possible, uniform standards for consular relations. The ordinary meaning of Article 73, paragraph 2, suggests that it is consistent with the Vienna Convention to conclude only subsequent agreements which confirm, supplement, extend or amplify the provisions of that instrument, such as agreements which regulate matters not covered by the Convention.

97. The Parties have negotiated the 2008 Agreement in full awareness of Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention. Having examined that Agreement and in light of the conditions set out in Article 73, paragraph 2, the Court is of the view that the 2008 Agreement is a subsequent agreement intended to “confirm, supplement, extend or amplify” the Vienna Convention. Consequently, the Court considers that point (vi) of that Agreement does not, as Pakistan contends, displace the obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.

98. For these reasons, the Court finds that none of the arguments raised by Pakistan concerning the applicability of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention to the case of Mr. Jadhav can be upheld. The Court thus concludes that the Vienna Convention is applicable in the present case, regardless of the allegations that Mr. Jadhav was engaged in espionage activities.

B. Alleged violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

99. Having concluded that the Vienna Convention is applicable in the present case, the Court will examine the alleged violations by Pakistan of its obligations under Article 36 thereof. India contends in its final submissions that Pakistan acted in breach of its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (i) by not informing India, without delay, of the detention of Mr. Jadhav;

(ii) by not informing Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36; and (iii) by denying consular officers of India access to Mr. Jadhav, contrary to their right to visit him, to converse and correspond with him, and to arrange for his legal representation. The Court will consider the alleged violations in chronological order.

1. Alleged failure to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b)

100. India states that it is not known whether Pakistan informed Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b). Nonetheless, the Applicant contends that the conduct of Pakistan, which at one point suggested in public statements that the detainee was not entitled to consular access, strongly indicates that it did not inform Mr. Jadhav of his right to communicate with the Indian consular post.

101. Pakistan has not asserted that it informed Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b).

102. Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention provides that the competent authorities of the receiving State must inform a foreign national in detention of his rights under that provision. The Court therefore needs to determine whether the competent Pakistani authorities informed Mr. Jadhav of his rights in accordance with this provision. In this respect, the Court observes that Pakistan has not contested India’s contention that Mr. Jadhav was not informed of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention. To the contrary, in the written and oral proceedings, Pakistan consistently maintained that the Convention does not apply to an individual suspected of espionage. The Court infers from this position of Pakistan that it did not inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention, and thus concludes that Pakistan breached its obligation to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights under that provision.

2. Alleged failure to inform India, without delay, of the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav

103. India states that Mr. Jadhav was arrested on 3 March 2016 and that it was informed of his arrest only when the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan raised the matter with the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad on 25 March 2016. It maintains that Pakistan has offered no explanation as to why it took over three weeks to inform the Indian High Commissioner of Mr. Jadhav’s arrest. According to the Applicant, Pakistan acknowledged as early as 30 March 2016 that India had requested consular access on 25 March 2016. The Applicant contends that Pakistan had no difficulty at that time in recognizing that the request related to Mr. Jadhav and that for that reason Pakistan did not seek clarification as to the identity of the individual concerned.

104. Pakistan confirms that Mr. Jadhav was arrested on 3 March 2016 and that it informed the Indian High Commissioner of the arrest on 25 March 2016. Nor does Pakistan contest that on

25 March 2016 the Indian High Commission in Islamabad sent a Note Verbale to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan referring to “the purported arrest of an Indian in Baluchistan” and requesting consular access to that individual. It stresses, however, that India did not identify the individual by name and maintains that it was not until 10 June 2016 that India actually identified the individual in question as Mr. Jadhav.

105. Citing the Judgment in the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), in which the Court stated that “‘without delay’ is not necessarily to be interpreted as ‘immediately’ upon arrest” (I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 49, para. 87), Pakistan contends that immediate consular access is not required by Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention. In the Respondent’s view, Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention makes it clear that the rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) to (c), must be exercised in a manner that is in accordance with the domestic law of the receiving State. Pakistan argues that the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State applies to the rights set out in the Vienna Convention.

106. Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention provides that if a national of the sending State is arrested or detained, and “if he so requests”, the competent authorities of the receiving State must, “without delay”, inform the consular post of the sending State. To examine India’s claim that Pakistan breached its obligation under this provision, the Court will consider, first, whether Mr. Jadhav made such a request and, secondly, whether Pakistan informed India’s consular post of the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav. Finally, if the Court finds that notification was provided by Pakistan, it will examine whether it was made “without delay”.

107. Interpreting Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the terms used, the Court notes that there is an inherent connection between the obligation of the receiving State to inform a detained person of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), and his ability to request that the consular post of the sending State be informed of his detention. Unless the receiving State has fulfilled its obligation to inform a detained person of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), he may not be aware of his rights and consequently may not be in a position to make a request that the competent authorities of the receiving State inform the sending State’s consular post of his arrest.

108. The travaux préparatoires confirm the connection between the obligation of the receiving State to inform a detained person of his rights and his ability to request that the consular post of the sending State be informed of his detention. The original text of Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), prepared by the International Law Commission, did not contain wording equivalent to “if he so requests” (Official Records of the United Nations Conference on Consular Relations, Vienna, 4 March-22 April 1963 (United Nations, doc. A/CONF.25/16/Add.1), Vol. II, p. 24). This phrase was added at the Vienna Conference in 1963. The United Kingdom expressed concern about “abuses and misunderstanding” which could be caused by the addition of this new phrase, which, in its view, “could well make the provisions of article 36 ineffective because the person arrested might not be aware of his rights” (ibid., Vol. I, pp. 83-84, para. 73). For these reasons, the United Kingdom considered it essential to introduce the following new sentence at the end of subparagraph (b): “The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph” (ibid., Vol. II, p. 171). The proposal to add the phrase “if he so requests” was adopted together with that of the United Kingdom to add the new sentence (ibid., Vol. I, p. 87, paras. 108-112).

109. Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention provides that if a detained person “so requests”, the competent authorities of the receiving State must inform the consular post of the sending State. In light of what is set out in paragraphs 107 and 108 above, the phrase “if he so requests” must be read in conjunction with the obligation of the receiving State to inform the detained person of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b). The Court has already found that Pakistan failed to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights (see paragraph 102 above). Consequently, the Court is of the view that Pakistan was under an obligation to inform India’s consular post of the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention.

110. Moreover, the Court observes that, when a national of the sending State is in prison, custody or detention, an obligation of the authorities of the receiving State to inform the consular post of the sending State is implied by the rights of the consular officers under Article 36, paragraph 1 (c), to visit the national, “to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation”.

111. The Court now proceeds to the second question, that of whether Pakistan informed India of the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav. On 25 March 2016, the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan summoned the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad to raise the matter of the arrest and issued a démarche protesting the illegal entry into Pakistan of “a RAW officer” (see paragraph 22 above). The Court observes that Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), does not specify the manner in which the receiving State should inform the consular post of the sending State of the detention of one of its nationals. What is important is that the information contained in the notification is sufficient to facilitate the exercise by the sending State of the consular rights envisaged by Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. Pakistan’s action on 25 March 2016 enabled India to make a request for consular access on the same day (see paragraph 103 above). Under the circumstances, the Court considers that Pakistan notified India on 25 March 2016 of the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav, as required by Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention.

112. The Court now turns to the final question, that of whether the notification was given

“without delay”. Pakistan claims that at the time of his arrest on 3 March 2016, Mr. Jadhav was in possession of an Indian passport bearing the name “Hussein Mubarak Patel”. In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that there were sufficient grounds at the time of the arrest on 3 March 2016 or shortly thereafter for Pakistan to conclude that the person was, or was likely to be, an Indian national, thus triggering its obligation to inform India of his arrest in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention (see Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 43, para. 63).

113. There was a delay of some three weeks between Mr. Jadhav’s arrest on 3 March 2016 and the notification made to India on 25 March 2016. The Court recalls that “neither the terms of the [Vienna] Convention as normally understood, nor its object and purpose, suggest that ‘without delay’ is to be understood as ‘immediately upon arrest and before interrogation’” (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 48, para. 85). It also recalls that “there is no suggestion in the travaux that the phrase ‘without delay’ might have different meanings in each of the three sets of circumstances in which it is used in Article 36, paragraph 1 (b)” (ibid., p. 49, para. 86). In the Avena case, the Court’s determination whether notification had been given “without delay” was made on the basis of each individual’s circumstances. It found that there had been a violation of the obligation to inform under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), with regard to a delay of just 40 hours when the foreign nationality of the detained person was apparent from the outset of his detention (ibid., p. 50, para. 89). However, the Court found no violation in respect of a delay of five days when the foreign nationality was less obvious at the time of arrest (ibid., p. 52, para. 97). Taking account of the particular circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the fact that the notification was made some three weeks after the arrest in this case constitutes a breach of the obligation to inform “without delay”, as required by Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention.

3. Alleged failure to provide consular access

114. India notes that Pakistan stated in its Note Verbale of 21 March 2017 that India’s request for consular access would be considered “in the light of India’s response to Pakistan’s request for assistance in the investigation process”. The Applicant argues that by denying its request for consular access despite repeated reminders, Pakistan has violated, and continues to violate, its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. India maintains that the obligations of the receiving State under Article 36 of the Convention are not conditional on the sending State complying with requests for co-operation in the investigation of crimes, and argues that Article 36 provides for no exception and thus creates obligations that are absolute in nature.

115. Pakistan maintains that the sending State’s consular function of defending the interests of its nationals in the receiving State must be exercised in a manner that is in conformity with the laws of the receiving State. In relation to the alleged violation of Article 36, paragraph 1 (c), it argues that Mr. Jadhav was allowed to choose a lawyer for himself, but that he opted to be represented by an in-house defending officer qualified for legal representation.

116. Article 36, paragraph 1 (a), of the Vienna Convention provides that

“consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State”.

Paragraph 1 (c) provides, inter alia, that “consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him”. The Court recalls that “Article 36, paragraph 1, creates individual rights, which, by virtue of Article I of the Optional Protocol, may be invoked in this Court by the national State of the detained person” (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 494, para. 77).

117. In the present case, it is undisputed that Pakistan has not granted any Indian consular officer access to Mr. Jadhav. India has made a number of requests for consular access since 25 March 2016 (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above). Pakistan responded to India’s request for consular access for the first time in its Note Verbale dated 21 March 2017, in which it stated that “the case for the consular access to the Indian national, Kulbushan Jadhev shall be considered, in the light of Indian side’s response to Pakistan’s request for assistance in investigation process and early dispensation of justice” (see paragraph 28 above). The Court is of the view that the alleged failure by India to co-operate in the investigation process in Pakistan does not relieve Pakistan of its obligation to grant consular access under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and does not justify Pakistan’s denial of access to Mr. Jadhav by consular officers of India.

118. Article 36, paragraph 1 (c), provides that consular officers have the right to arrange legal representation for a detained national of the sending State. The provision presupposes that consular officers can arrange legal representation based on conversation and correspondence with the detained person. In the view of the Court, Pakistan’s contention that Mr. Jadhav was allowed to choose a lawyer for himself, but that he opted to be represented by a defending officer qualified for legal representation, even if it is established, does not dispense with the consular officers’ right to arrange for his legal representation.

119. The Court therefore concludes that Pakistan has breached the obligations incumbent on it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the Vienna Convention, by denying consular officers of India access to Mr. Jadhav, contrary to their right to visit him, to converse and correspond with him, and to arrange for his legal representation.

120. Having concluded that Pakistan acted in breach of its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c), of the Vienna Convention, the Court will now examine Pakistan’s contentions based on abuse of rights.

C. Abuse of rights

121. In light of the above, the Court will determine whether India’s alleged violations of international law invoked by Pakistan in support of its contentions based on abuse of rights may constitute a defence on the merits (see paragraphs 57 and 58 above).

122. The Parties’ arguments regarding such allegations have already been set out above (see paragraphs 51-53 above). In essence, Pakistan argues that India cannot request consular assistance with respect to Mr. Jadhav, while at the same time it has failed to comply with other obligations under international law.

123. In this respect, the Court recalls that the Vienna Convention “lays down certain standards to be observed by all States parties, with a view to the ‘unimpeded conduct of consular relations’”, and that Article 36 on consular assistance to and communication with nationals undergoing criminal proceedings sets forth rights both for the State and the individual which are interdependent (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 36, para. 40 and p. 38, para. 47, citing respectively LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 494, para. 77; and United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 1979, I.C.J. Reports 1979, pp. 19-20, para. 40). In the Court’s view, there is no basis under the Vienna Convention for a State to condition the fulfilment of its obligations under Article 36 on the other State’s compliance with other international law obligations. Otherwise, the whole system of consular assistance would be severely undermined.
-34-

124. For these reasons, the Court concludes that none of Pakistan’s allegations relating to abuse of rights by India justifies breaches by Pakistan of its obligations under Article 36 of the

Vienna Convention. Pakistan’s arguments in this respect must therefore be rejected.

V. REMEDIES

125. The remedies requested by India in its final submissions have already been set out (see paragraph 19 above). In summary, India requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Pursuant to the foregoing, India asks the Court to declare that the sentence of Pakistan’s military court is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention, and that India is entitled to restitutio in integrum. It also requests the Court to annul the decision of the military court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, to direct Pakistan to release Mr. Jadhav and to facilitate his safe passage to India. In the alternative, and if the Court were to find that Mr. Jadhav is not to be released, India requests the Court to annul the decision of the military court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by that court. In the further alternative, India asks the Court to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military court. In either event, it requests the Court to direct a trial under ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding Mr. Jadhav’s confession and in strict conformity with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with full consular access and with a right for India to arrange for Mr. Jadhav’s legal representation.

126. India argues that, in order to fashion an appropriate remedy that would meet the high standards of international human rights law, “of which Article 36 is . . . a significant element”, the Court should take into account the nature and extent of the violations, the degree of injury suffered, and the extent to which the trial did not follow the norms of due process. It maintains that where the breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention has resulted in the violation of the right under Article 14 of the Covenant, the principles of State responsibility must recognize the “synergy” between Article 14 and Article 36 and must therefore address the serious consequences of the breach of Article 36 which results in the violation of the right under Article 14 of the Covenant.

127. India seeks to distinguish the present case from the LaGrand and Avena cases, in which, according to India, the Court granted only review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence, because it accepted the assertion of the United States that its criminal justice system was fully compliant with due process. India argues that Pakistan’s criminal justice system by way of trial in the military courts does not satisfy the minimum standards of due process in its application to civilians. It contends that “relief by way of review and reconsideration” is “highly inadequate” as a remedy in the case of Mr. Jadhav. Referring to a judgment rendered by the Pakistan Supreme Court in 2016 in Said Zaman Khan et al. v. Federation of Pakistan (see paragraph 141 below), it contends that the remit of judicial review in Pakistan is narrow, because convictions by the military courts “can only be assailed on the ground of coram non judice, absence of jurisdiction, mala fide and malice in law”. While acknowledging that a judgment rendered by the Peshawar High Court in 2018 appears to have taken “a broader view”, India stresses that the Government of Pakistan has filed an appeal against that judgment and that the Supreme Court has suspended the operation of the judgment pending the appeal.

128. In support of its argument on an appropriate remedy, India refers to reports of certain international and non-governmental organizations on the military justice system in Pakistan.

129. Pakistan, for its part, contends that the relief sought by India (the annulment of a domestic criminal conviction, the annulment of a domestic criminal sentence, the release of a convicted prisoner) could only be granted by an appellate criminal court. According to Pakistan, granting such relief would transform the Court into a court of appeal of national criminal proceedings. It submits that the Court has repeatedly and consistently affirmed the principle that it does not have the function of a criminal appellate court and maintains that restitution to the status quo ante is not an appropriate remedy for a breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, because, unlike legal assistance, consular assistance is not regarded as a predicate to a criminal proceeding.

130. Pakistan maintains that the appropriate remedy in this case would be, at most, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of the accused, taking into account the potential effects of any violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. It refers to the decision rendered by the Peshawar High Court in 2018, which set aside more than 70 convictions and sentences handed down by military courts. It contends that its domestic legal system provides for an established and defined process whereby the civil courts can undertake a substantive review of the decisions of military tribunals, in order to ensure procedural fairness has been afforded to the accused, and that its courts are well suited to carrying out a review and reconsideration that gives full weight to the effect of any violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.

131. Pakistan further notes that clemency procedures can act as an appropriate supplement to judicial procedures for review and reconsideration, and points out that, at all material times, both judicial review and clemency procedures have been available to Mr. Jadhav and his family.

132. Pakistan adds that the conduct of India and Mr. Jadhav must be taken into account in any consideration of relief the Court undertakes, including whether the conduct is of such grave illegality that it militates against the granting of any relief at all.

133. The Court has already found that Pakistan acted in breach of its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention,

(i) by not informing Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b);

(ii) by not informing India, without delay, of the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav; and

(iii) by denying access to Mr. Jadhav by consular officers of India, contrary to their right, inter alia, to arrange for his legal representation (see paragraphs 99-119 above).

134. The Court considers that the breaches by Pakistan set out in (i) and (iii) in the paragraph above constitute internationally wrongful acts of a continuing character. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that Pakistan is under an obligation to cease those acts and to comply fully with its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. Consequently, Pakistan must inform Mr. Jadhav without further delay of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), and allow Indian consular officers to have access to him and to arrange for his legal representation, as provided by Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c).

135. With regard to India’s submission that the Court declare that the sentence handed down by Pakistan’s military court is violative of international law and the provisions of the Vienna Convention, the Court recalls that its jurisdiction has its basis in Article I of the Optional Protocol. This jurisdiction is limited to the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention and does not extend to India’s claims based on any other rules of international law (see paragraph 36 above). India refers to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to support its requests for remedies. In accordance with the rule reflected in Article 31, paragraph 3 (c), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Covenant may be taken into account, together with the context, for the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Court notes, however, that the remedy to be ordered in this case has the purpose of providing reparation only for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act of Pakistan that falls within the Court’s jurisdiction, namely its breach of obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and not of the Covenant.

136. As regards India’s claim based on the Vienna Convention, the Court considers that it is not the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav which are to be regarded as a violation of the provisions of the Vienna Convention. In the Avena case, the Court confirmed that “the case before it concerns Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and not the correctness as such of any conviction or sentencing”, and that “it is not the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals which are to be regarded as a violation of international law, but solely certain breaches of treaty obligations [on consular access] which preceded them” (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 60, paras. 122-123).

137. With regard to India’s contention that it is entitled to restitutio in integrum and its request to annul the decision of the military court and to restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, and its further request to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, to release Mr. Jadhav and to facilitate his safe passage to India, the Court reiterates that it is not the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav which are to be regarded as a violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. The Court also recalls that “[i]t is not to be presumed . . . that partial or total annulment of conviction or sentence provides the necessary and sole remedy” in cases of violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (ibid., p. 60, para. 123). Thus, the Court finds that these submissions made by India cannot be upheld.

138. The Court reaffirms that “it is a principle of international law . . . that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation” and that “reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act” (Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity), Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, pp. 29, 47). The Court considers the appropriate remedy in this case to be effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav. This is consistent with the approach that the Court has taken in cases of violations of Article 36 of the Convention (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 514, para. 125; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 65-66, paras. 138-140 and p. 73, para. 153). It is also in line with what the Applicant asks the Court to adjudge and declare in the present case. In the Court’s view, India ultimately requests effective remedies for the breaches of the Convention by Pakistan. The Court notes that Pakistan acknowledges that the appropriate remedy in the present case would be effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence.

139. The Court considers that a special emphasis must be placed on the need for the review and reconsideration to be effective. The review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, in order to be effective, must ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Convention and guarantee that the violation and the possible prejudice caused by the violation are fully examined. It presupposes the existence of a procedure which is suitable for this purpose. The Court observes that it is normally the judicial process which is suited to the task of review and reconsideration (see Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 65-66, paras. 138-140).

140. In the present case, the death sentence imposed on Mr. Jadhav by the Field General Court Martial of Pakistan was confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff on 10 April 2017. The evidence suggests that Mr. Jadhav appealed to the Military Appellate Court under Section 133 (B) of the Pakistan Army Act of 1952, but that the appeal was rejected. With regard to the petition procedure, the evidence suggests that Mr. Jadhav has made a mercy petition to the Chief of Army Staff, and that the mother of Mr. Jadhav has sought to file a petition with the Federal Government of Pakistan under Section 131 and an appeal under Section 133 (B) of the Act. There is no evidence before the Court to indicate the outcome of those petitions or that appeal.

141. The Court notes that, according to Pakistan, the High Courts of Pakistan can exercise review jurisdiction. The Court observes, however, that Article 199, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of Pakistan has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as limiting the availability of such review for a person who is subject to any law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan, including the Pakistan Army Act of 1952. The Supreme Court has stated that the High Courts and the Supreme Court may exercise judicial review over a decision of the Field General Court Martial on “the grounds of coram non judice, without jurisdiction or suffering from mala fides, including malice in law only” (Said Zaman Khan et al. v. Federation of Pakistan, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Civil Petition No. 842 of 2016, 29 August 2016, para. 73). Article 8, paragraph 1, of the Constitution provides that any law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution is void, but this provision does not apply to the Pakistan Army Act of 1952 by virtue of a constitutional amendment (ibid., para. 125). Thus, it is not clear whether judicial review of a decision of a military court is available on the ground that there has been a violation of the rights set forth in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention.

142. The Court takes note of the decision of the Peshawar High Court in 2018. The High Court held that it had the legal mandate positively to interfere with decisions of military courts “[i]f the case of the prosecution was based, firstly, on no evidence, secondly, insufficient evidence, thirdly, absence of jurisdiction, finally malice of facts & law” (Abdur Rashid et al. v. Federation of Pakistan, High Court of Peshawar, Writ Petition 536-P of 2018, 18 October 2018, pp. 147-148). The Government of Pakistan has appealed the decision and the case was still pending at the close of the oral proceedings in the present case.

143. The Court confirms that the clemency process is not sufficient in itself to serve as an appropriate means of review and reconsideration but that “appropriate clemency procedures can supplement judicial review and reconsideration, in particular where the judicial system has failed to take due account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Vienna Convention” (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 66, para. 143).

The evidence before the Court suggests that two clemency procedures are available to Mr. Jadhav: a mercy petition to the Chief of Army Staff within 60 days of the decision by the Appellate Court and a mercy petition to the President of Pakistan within 90 days of the decision of the Chief of Army Staff on the mercy petition (see paragraph 29 above). The outcome of the petition submitted by Mr. Jadhav to the Chief of Army Staff (see paragraph 140 above) has not, however, been made known to the Court. No evidence has been submitted to the Court regarding the presidential clemency procedure.

144. In light of these circumstances, the Court considers it imperative to re-emphasize that the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav must be effective.

145. In this regard, the Court takes full cognizance of the representations made by Pakistan. During the oral proceedings, the Agent of Pakistan declared that the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees, as a fundamental right, the right to a fair trial; that the right to a fair trial is “absolute” and “cannot be taken away”; and that all trials are conducted accordingly and, if not, “the process of judicial review is always available”. Counsel for Pakistan assured the Court that the High Courts of Pakistan exercise “effective review jurisdiction”, giving as an example the decision of the Peshawar High Court in 2018 (see paragraph 142 above). The Court points out that respect for the principles of a fair trial is of cardinal importance in any review and reconsideration, and that, in the circumstances of the present case, it is essential for the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav to be effective. The Court considers that the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and its implications for the principles of a fair trial, should be fully examined and properly addressed during the review and reconsideration process. In particular, any potential prejudice and the implications for the evidence and the right of defence of the accused should receive close scrutiny during the review and reconsideration.

146. The Court notes that the obligation to provide effective review and reconsideration can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means is left to Pakistan (cf. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 514, para. 125). Nevertheless, freedom in the choice of means is not without qualification (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 62, para. 131). The obligation to provide effective review and reconsideration is “an obligation of result” which “must be performed unconditionally” (Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 17, para. 44). Consequently, Pakistan shall take all measures to provide for effective review and reconsideration, including, if necessary, by enacting appropriate legislation.

147. To conclude, the Court finds that Pakistan is under an obligation to provide, by means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, taking account of paragraphs 139, 145 and 146 of this Judgment.

148. The Court recalls that it indicated a provisional measure directing Pakistan to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in the present proceedings (Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Provisional Measures, Order of 18 May 2017, I.C.J. Reports 2017, p. 246, para. 61 (I)). The Court considers that a continued stay of execution constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav.

149. For these reasons,

THE COURT,

(1) Unanimously,

Finds that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article I of the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, to entertain the Application filed by the Republic of India on 8 May 2017;

(2) By fifteen votes to one, Rejects the objections by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the admissibility of the Application of the Republic of India and finds that the Application of the Republic of India is admissible;

IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;

(3) By fifteen votes to one,

Finds that, by not informing Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav without delay of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan breached the obligations incumbent upon it under that provision;

IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;

(4) By fifteen votes to one,

Finds that, by not notifying the appropriate consular post of the Republic of India in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan without delay of the detention of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav and thereby depriving the Republic of India of the right to render the assistance provided for by the Vienna Convention to the individual concerned, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;

IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;

(5) By fifteen votes to one,

Finds that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan deprived the Republic of India of the right to communicate with and have access to Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, to visit him in detention and to arrange for his legal representation, and thereby breached the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;

IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;

(6) By fifteen votes to one,

Finds that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is under an obligation to inform Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav without further delay of his rights and to provide Indian consular officers access to him in accordance with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;

IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;

(7) By fifteen votes to one,

Finds that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to provide, by the means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Convention, taking account of paragraphs 139, 145 and 146 of this Judgment;

IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani;

(8) By fifteen votes to one,

Declares that a continued stay of execution constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.

IN FAVOUR: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Jillani.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this seventeenth day of July, two thousand and nineteen, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, respectively.

(Signed) Abdulqawi Ahmed YUSUF,

President.

(Signed) Jean-Pelé FOMÉTÉ,
Deputy-Registrar.

Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judges SEBUTINDE, ROBINSON and IWASAWA append declarations to the Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc JILLANI appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court.

(Initialled) A.A.Y.

(Initialled) J-P.F.

___________

Seventeenth Lok Sabha Members

Sl. No Name Of Member Party Name Constituency (State)
1 Abdullah, Dr. Farooq Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir)
2 Adhikari, Shri Deepak (Dev) All India Trinamool Congress Ghatal (West Bengal)
3 Adhikari, Shri Dibyendu All India Trinamool Congress Tamluk (West Bengal)
4 Adhikari, Shri Sisir Kumar All India Trinamool Congress Kanthi (West Bengal)
5 Agrawal, Shri Rajendra Bharatiya Janata Party Meerut (Uttar Pradesh)
6 Ahluwalia, Shri S.S. Bharatiya Janata Party Bardhaman-Durgapur (West Bengal)
7 Ahmed, Smt. Sajda All India Trinamool Congress Uluberia (West Bengal)
8 Ajgalley, Shri Guharam Bharatiya Janata Party Janjgir-Champa (SC)(Chhattisgarh)
9 Ajmal, Maulana Badruddin All India United Democratic Front Dhubri (Assam)
10 Ambareesh, Smt. Sumalatha Independents Mandya (Karnataka)
11 Angadi, Shri Suresh Chanabasappa Bharatiya Janata Party Belgaum (Karnataka)
12 Annadurai, Shri C.N. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Tiruvannamalai (Tamil Nadu)
13 Ansari, Shri Afzal Bahujan Samaj Party Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh)
14 Antony, Shri Anto Indian National Congress Pathanamthitta (Kerala)
15 Ariff, Adv. Abdul Majeed Communist Party of India (Marxist) Alappuzha (Kerala)
16 Aujla, Shri Gurjeet Singh Indian National Congress Amritsar (Punjab)
17 Azad, Smt. Sangeeta Bahujan Samaj Party Lalganj (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
18 B.N. , Shri Bache Gowda Bharatiya Janata Party Chikkballapur (Karnataka)
19 Baalu, Shri Thalikkottai Rajuthevar Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Sriperumbudur (Tamil Nadu)
20 Babul Supriyo, Shri Bharatiya Janata Party Asansol (West Bengal)
21 Badal, Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Shiromani Akali Dal Bathinda (Punjab)
22 Badal, Shri Sukhbir Singh Shiromani Akali Dal Ferozpur (Punjab)
23 Baghel, Prof. S.P. Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Agra (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
24 Baghel, Shri Vijay Bharatiya Janata Party Durg (Chhattisgarh)
25 Baheria, Shri Subhash Chandra Bharatiya Janata Party Bhilwara (Rajasthan)
26 Baij, Shri Deepak Indian National Congress Bastar (ST)(Chhattisgarh)
27 Balli, Shri Durga Prasad Rao Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Tirupati (SC)(Andhra Pradesh)
28 Balyan, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh)
29 Bandi, Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Karimnagar (Telangana)
30 Bandyopadhyay, Shri Sudip All India Trinamool Congress Kolkata Uttar (West Bengal)
31 Banerjee, Shri Abhishek All India Trinamool Congress Diamond Harbour (West Bengal)
32 Banerjee, Shri Kalyan All India Trinamool Congress Serampore (West Bengal)
33 Banerjee, Shri Prasun All India Trinamool Congress Howrah (West Bengal)
34 Bapat, Shri Girish Bhalchandra Bharatiya Janata Party Pune (Maharashtra)
35 Barla, Shri John Bharatiya Janata Party Alipurduars (ST)(West Bengal)
36 Barne, Shri Shrirang Appa Shiv Sena Maval (Maharashtra)
37 Barq, Shri Shafiqur Rahman Samajwadi Party Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh)
38 Baruah, Shri Pradan Bharatiya Janata Party Lakhimpur (Assam)
39 Basavaraj, Shri Gangasandra Siddappa Bharatiya Janata Party Tumkur (Karnataka)
40 Basheer, Shri E. T. Mohammed Indian Union Muslim League Ponnani (Kerala)
41 Bellana, Shri Chandra Sekhar Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Vizianagaram (Andhra Pradesh)
42 Beniwal, Shri Hanuman Rashtriya Loktantrik Party Nagaur (Rajasthan)
43 Benny, Shri Behanan Indian National Congress Chalakudy (Kerala)
44 Bey, Shri Horen Sing Bharatiya Janata Party Autonomous District (ST)(Assam)
45 Bhabhor, Shri Jaswantsinh Sumanbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Dahod (ST)(Gujarat)
46 Bhagat, Shri Sudarshan Bharatiya Janata Party Lohardaga (ST)(Jharkhand)
47 Bhagirath Chaudhary, Shri Bharatiya Janata Party Ajmer (Rajasthan)
48 Bhamre, Dr. Subhash Ramrao Bharatiya Janata Party Dhule (Maharashtra)
49 Bharat, Shri Margani Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Rajahmundry (Andhra Pradesh)
50 Bhargava, Shri Ramakant Bharatiya Janata Party Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh)
51 Bhatia, Shri Sanjay Bharatiya Janata Party Karnal (Haryana)
52 Bhatt, Shri Ajay Bharatiya Janata Party Nainital-Udhamsingh Nagar (Uttarakhand)
53 Bhatt, Smt. Ranjanben Dhananjay Bharatiya Janata Party Vadodara (Gujarat)
54 Bhavana Gawali (Patil), Ms. Shiv Sena Yavatmal-Washim (Maharashtra)
55 Bholanath (B.P. Saroj), Shri Bharatiya Janata Party Machhlishahr (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
56 Bhonsle, Shri Udayanraje Pratapsingh Nationalist Congress Party Satara (Maharashtra)
57 Bhoumik, Ms. Pratima Bharatiya Janata Party Tripura West (Tripura)
58 Bidhuri, Shri Ramesh Bharatiya Janata Party South Delhi (NCT of Delhi)
59 Bind, Shri Ramesh Chand Bharatiya Janata Party Bhadohi (Uttar Pradesh)
60 Birla, Shri Om Bharatiya Janata Party Kota (Rajasthan)
61 Bisen, Dr. Dhal Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh)
62 Bisoyi, Smt. Pramila Biju Janata Dal Aska (Odisha)
63 Bista, Shri Raju Bharatiya Janata Party Darjeeling (West Bengal)
64 Bohra, Shri Ramcharan Bharatiya Janata Party Jaipur (Rajasthan)
65 Bordoloi, Shri Pradyut Indian National Congress Nawgong (Assam)
66 Borlakunta, Shri Venkatesh Netha Telangana Rashtra Samithi Peddapalle (SC)(Telangana)
67 Chahar, Shri Rajkumar Bharatiya Janata Party Fatehpur Sikri (Uttar Pradesh)
68 Chakraborty, Ms. Mimi All India Trinamool Congress Jadavpur (West Bengal)
69 Chandel, Kunwar Pushpendra Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Hamirpur (Uttar Pradesh)
70 Chandra, Shri Girish Bahujan Samaj Party Nagina (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
71 Chatterjee, Smt. Locket Bharatiya Janata Party Hooghly (West Bengal)
72 Chaudhary, Shri P.P. Bharatiya Janata Party Pali (Rajasthan)
73 Chaudhary, Shri Pradeep Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Kairana (Uttar Pradesh)
74 Chaudhary, Shri Santokh Singh Indian National Congress Jalandhar (SC)(Punjab)
75 Chaudhuri, Ms. Debasree Bharatiya Janata Party Raiganj (West Bengal)
76 Chauhan, Shri Devusinh Jesingbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Kheda (Gujarat)
77 Chauhan, Shri Nand Kumar Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh)
78 Chauhan, Shri Nihal Chand Bharatiya Janata Party Ganganagar (SC)(Rajasthan)
79 Chavda, Shri Vinod Bharatiya Janata Party Kachchh (SC)(Gujarat)
80 Chazhikadan, Shri Thomas Kerala Congress (M) Kottayam (Kerala)
81 Chellakumar, Dr. A. Indian National Congress Krishnagiri (Tamil Nadu)
82 Chidambaram, Shri Karti P. Indian National Congress Sivaganga (Tamil Nadu)
83 Chikhalikar, Shri Prataprao Patil Bharatiya Janata Party Nanded (Maharashtra)
84 Chinraj, Shri A.K.P. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Namakkal (Tamil Nadu)
85 Chinta Anuradha, Smt. Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Amalapuram (SC)(Andhra Pradesh)
86 Choubey, Shri Ashwini Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Buxar (Bihar)
87 Choudhary, Shri Chandra Prakash AJSU Party Giridih (Jharkhand)
88 Choudhary, Shri Kailash Bharatiya Janata Party Barmer (Rajasthan)
89 Choudhury, Shri Abu Hasem Khan Indian National Congress Maldaha Dakshin (West Bengal)
90 Chowdhary, Shri Pankaj Bharatiya Janata Party Maharajganj (Uttar Pradesh)
91 Chowdhury, Shri Adhir Ranjan Indian National Congress Baharampur (West Bengal)
92 Chudasama, Shri Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Junagadh (Gujarat)
93 Dabhi, Shri Bharatsinhji Shankarji Bharatiya Janata Party Patan (Gujarat)
94 Damor, Shri Guman Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Ratlam (ST)(Madhya Pradesh)
95 Danve, Shri Raosaheb Patil Bharatiya Janata Party Jalna (Maharashtra)
96 Darbar, Shri Chhatar Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Dhar (ST)(Madhya Pradesh)
97 Das, Shri Pallab Lochan Bharatiya Janata Party Tezpur (Assam)
98 Dastidar, Dr. (Smt.) Kakoli Ghosh All India Trinamool Congress Barasat (West Bengal)
99 Deb, Shri Nitesh Ganga Bharatiya Janata Party Sambalpur (Odisha)
100 Delkar, Shri Mohanbhai Sanjibhai Independents Dadra and Nagar Haveli (ST)(Dadra and Nagar Haveli)
101 Deol, Shri Sunny Bharatiya Janata Party Gurdaspur (Punjab)
102 Devarayalu, Shri Lavu Sri Krishna Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Narasaraopet (Andhra Pradesh)
103 Devi, Ms. Annpurna Bharatiya Janata Party Kodarma (Jharkhand)
104 Devi, Smt. Rama Bharatiya Janata Party Sheohar (Bihar)
105 Devi, Smt. Veena Lok Jan Shakti Party Vaishali (Bihar)
106 Dhaduk, Shri Rameshbhai Lavjibhai Bharatiya Janata Party Porbandar (Gujarat)
107 Dhanorkar, Shri Balubhau (Alias Suresh Narayan) Indian National Congress Chandrapur (Maharashtra)
108 Dharambir Singh, Shri Bharatiya Janata Party Bhiwani-Mahendragarh (Haryana)
109 Dharmapuri, Shri Arvind Bharatiya Janata Party Nizamabad (Telangana)
110 Dhotre, Shri Sanjay Shamrao Bharatiya Janata Party Akola (Maharashtra)
111 Diler, Shri Rajvir Bharatiya Janata Party Hathras (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
112 Dilip, Shri Saikia Bharatiya Janata Party Mangaldoi (Assam)
113 Dubey, Dr. Nishikant Bharatiya Janata Party Godda (Jharkhand)
114 Dubey, Shri Vijay Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Kushi Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)
115 Duggal, Smt. Sunita Bharatiya Janata Party Sirsa (SC)(Haryana)
116 Dwivedi, Shri Harish Bharatiya Janata Party Basti (Uttar Pradesh)
117 Eden, Shri Hibi Indian National Congress Ernakulam (Kerala)
118 Firojiya, Shri Anil Bharatiya Janata Party Ujjain (SC)(Madhya Pradesh)
119 Gaddigoudar, Shri Parvatagouda Chandanagouda Bharatiya Janata Party Bagalkot (Karnataka)
120 Gadkari, Shri Nitin Jairam Bharatiya Janata Party Nagpur (Maharashtra)
121 Galla, Shri Jayadev Telugu Desam Party Guntur (Andhra Pradesh)
122 Gambhir, Shri Gautam Bharatiya Janata Party East Delhi (NCT of Delhi)
123 Gandhi, Shri Feroze Varun Bharatiya Janata Party Pilibhit (Uttar Pradesh)
124 Gandhi, Smt. Maneka Sanjay Bharatiya Janata Party Sultanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
125 Gandhi, Shri Rahul Indian National Congress Wayanad (Kerala)
126 Gandhi, Smt. Sonia Indian National Congress Rae Bareli (Uttar Pradesh)
127 Ganeshamurthi, Shri A. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Erode (Tamil Nadu)
128 Gangapuram, Shri Kishan Reddy Bharatiya Janata Party Secunderabad (Telangana)
129 Gangwar, Shri Santosh Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh)
130 Gao, Shri Tapir Bharatiya Janata Party Arunachal East (Arunachal Pradesh)
131 Gautam, Shri Satish Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh)
132 Gavit, Dr. Heena Vijaykumar Bharatiya Janata Party Nandurbar (ST)(Maharashtra)
133 Gavit, Shri Rajendra Dhedya Shiv Sena Palghar (ST)(Maharashtra)
134 General (Dr.) , Vijay Kumar Singh (Retd.) Bharatiya Janata Party Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh)
135 Ghosh, Shri Dilip Bharatiya Janata Party Medinipur (West Bengal)
136 Gill, Shri Jasbir Singh Indian National Congress Khadoor Sahib (Punjab)
137 Gnanathiraviam, Shri S. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Tirunelveli (Tamil Nadu)
138 Godse, Shri Hemant Tukaram Shiv Sena Nashik (Maharashtra)
139 Gogoi, Shri Gaurav Indian National Congress Kaliabor (Assam)
140 Gogoi, Shri Topon Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Jorhat (Assam)
141 Gopal Jee Thakur, Shri Bharatiya Janata Party Darbhanga (Bihar)
142 Goswami, Shri Dulal Chandra Janata Dal (United) Katihar (Bihar)
143 Gowda, Shri D.V. Sadananda Bharatiya Janata Party Bangalore North (Karnataka)
144 Gupta, Shri Sangamlal Kadedin Bharatiya Janata Party Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh)
145 Gupta, Shri Sudheer Bharatiya Janata Party Mandsour (Madhya Pradesh)
146 Gurjar, Shri Krishan Pal Bharatiya Janata Party Faridabad (Haryana)
147 Hans, Shri Raj Hans Bharatiya Janata Party North West Delhi (SC)(NCT of Delhi)
148 Hansdak, Shri Vijay Kumar Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Rajmahal (ST)(Jharkhand)
149 Haridas, Ms. Ramya Indian National Congress Alathur (SC)(Kerala)
150 Harsh Vardhan , Dr. Bharatiya Janata Party Chandni Chowk (NCT of Delhi)
151 Hasan, Dr. S.T. Samajwadi Party Moradabad (Uttar Pradesh)
152 Hegde, Shri Anantkumar Bharatiya Janata Party Uttara Kannada (Karnataka)
153 Hema Malini, Smt. Bharatiya Janata Party Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)
154 Hembram, Shri Kunar Bharatiya Janata Party Jhargram (ST)(West Bengal)
155 Irani, Smt. Smriti Bharatiya Janata Party Amethi (Uttar Pradesh)
156 Jadhav, Shri Prataprao Shiv Sena Buldhana (Maharashtra)
157 Jadhav, Shri Sanjay Haribhau Shiv Sena Parbhani (Maharashtra)
158 Jadhav, Dr. Umesh G. Bharatiya Janata Party Gulbarga (SC)(Karnataka)
159 Jagathrakshakan, Shri S. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Arakkonam (Tamil Nadu)
160 Jai Prakash, Shri Bharatiya Janata Party Hardoi (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
161 Jaiswal, Dr. Sanjay Bharatiya Janata Party Paschim Champaran (Bihar)
162 Jardosh, Smt. Darshana Vikram Bharatiya Janata Party Surat (Gujarat)
163 Jatua, Shri Choudhury Mohan All India Trinamool Congress Mathurapur (SC)(West Bengal)
164 Jaunapuria, Shri Sukhbir Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Tonk-Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
165 Jawed, Dr. Mohammad Indian National Congress Kishanganj (Bihar)
166 Jayakumar, Dr. K. Indian National Congress Tiruvallur (SC)(Tamil Nadu)
167 Jigajinagi, Shri Ramesh Chandappa Bharatiya Janata Party Bijapur (SC)(Karnataka)
168 Jolle, Shri Annasaheb Shankar Bharatiya Janata Party Chikkodi (Karnataka)
169 Joshi, Shri Chandra Prakash Bharatiya Janata Party Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
170 Joshi, Shri Pralhad Venkatesh Bharatiya Janata Party Dharwad (Karnataka)
171 Joshi, Smt. Rita Bahuguna Bharatiya Janata Party Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh)
172 Jothimani, Smt S. Indian National Congress Karur (Tamil Nadu)
173 Jyoti, Sadhvi Niranjan Bharatiya Janata Party Fatehpur (Uttar Pradesh)
174 K. Navas, Shri Kani Indian Union Muslim League Ramanathapuram (Tamil Nadu)
175 Kachhadiya, Shri Naranbhai Bhikhabhai Bharatiya Janata Party Amreli (Gujarat)
176 Kaiser, Choudhary Mehboob Ali Lok Jan Shakti Party Khagaria (Bihar)
177 Kalanidhi, Dr. V. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Chennai North (Tamil Nadu)
178 Kamait, Shri Dileshwar Janata Dal (United) Supaul (Bihar)
179 Kanumuru, Shri Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Narsapuram (Andhra Pradesh)
180 Kapoor, Shri Kisan Bharatiya Janata Party Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)
181 Karadi, Shri Sanganna Amarappa Bharatiya Janata Party Koppal (Karnataka)
182 Karandlaje, Km. Shobha Bharatiya Janata Party Udupi Chikmagalur (Karnataka)
183 Karunanidhi, Smt. Kanimozhi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Thoothukkudi (Tamil Nadu)
184 Kashyap, Shri Dharmendra Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Aonla (Uttar Pradesh)
185 Kashyap, Shri Suresh Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Shimla (SC)(Himachal Pradesh)
186 Kaswan, Shri Rahul Bharatiya Janata Party Churu (Rajasthan)
187 Katara, Shri Kanakmal Bharatiya Janata Party Banswara (ST)(Rajasthan)
188 Kataria, Shri Rattan Lal Bharatiya Janata Party Ambala (SC)(Haryana)
189 Kateel, Shri Nalin Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Dakshina Kannada (Karnataka)
190 Katheria, Prof. (Dr.) Ram Shankar Bharatiya Janata Party Etawah (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
191 Kaur, Smt. Preneet Indian National Congress Patiala (Punjab)
192 Kaushik, Shri Ramesh Chander Bharatiya Janata Party Sonipat (Haryana)
193 Kesineni, Shri Srinivas Telugu Desam Party Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh)
194 Khadse, Smt. Raksha Nikhil Bharatiya Janata Party Raver (Maharashtra)
195 Khaleque, Shri Abdul Indian National Congress Barpeta (Assam)
196 Khan, Shri Abu Taher All India Trinamool Congress Murshidabad (West Bengal)
197 Khan, Shri Mohammad Azam Samajwadi Party Rampur (Uttar Pradesh)
198 Kher, Smt. Kirron Bharatiya Janata Party Chandigarh (Chandigarh)
199 Khuba, Shri Bhagwanth Bharatiya Janata Party Bidar (Karnataka)
200 Kirtikar, Shri Gajanan Chandrakant Shiv Sena Mumbai-North-West (Maharashtra)
201 Kishore, Shri Kaushal Bharatiya Janata Party Mohanlalganj (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
202 Kodikunnil, Shri Suresh Indian National Congress Mavelikkara (SC)(Kerala)
203 Kolhe, Dr. Amol Ramsing Nationalist Congress Party Shirur (Maharashtra)
204 Koli, Smt. Ranjeeta Bharatiya Janata Party Bharatpur (SC)(Rajasthan)
205 Kora, Smt. Geeta Indian National Congress Singhbhum (ST)(Jharkhand)
206 Kotak, Shri Manoj Kishorbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Mumbai-North-East (Maharashtra)
207 Kulaste, Shri Faggan Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Mandla (ST)(Madhya Pradesh)
208 Kumar, Shri Dhanush M Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Tenkasi (SC)(Tamil Nadu)
209 Kumar, Shri Kaushalendra Janata Dal (United) Nalanda (Bihar)
210 Kumar, Shri Narendra Bharatiya Janata Party Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
211 Kumar, Shri Santosh Janata Dal (United) Purnia (Bihar)
212 Kumar, Shri Vijay Janata Dal (United) Gaya (SC)(Bihar)
213 Kumar, Dr. Virendra Bharatiya Janata Party Tikamgarh (SC)(Madhya Pradesh)
214 Kumar (Pintu), Shri Sunil Janata Dal (United) Sitamarhi (Bihar)
215 Kumari, Ms. Diya Bharatiya Janata Party Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
216 Kundariya, Shri Mohanbhai Kalyanji Bharatiya Janata Party Rajkot (Gujarat)
217 Kunwar, Shri Danish Ali Bahujan Samaj Party Amroha (Uttar Pradesh)
218 Kuriakose, Adv. Dean Indian National Congress Idukki (Kerala)
219 Kushawaha, Shri Ravindra Bharatiya Janata Party Salempur (Uttar Pradesh)
220 Lal, Shri Akshaibar Bharatiya Janata Party Bahraich (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
221 Lal, Shri Pakauri Apna Dal Robertsganj (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
222 Lalrosanga, Shri C. Mizo National Front Mizoram (ST)(Mizoram)
223 Lalwani, Shri Shankar Bharatiya Janata Party Indore (Madhya Pradesh)
224 Lekhi, Smt. Meenakashi Bharatiya Janata Party New Delhi (NCT of Delhi)
225 Lokhande, Shri Sadashiv Kisan Shiv Sena Shirdi (SC)(Maharashtra)
226 Lone, Shri Mohammad Akbar Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Baramulla (Jammu and Kashmir)
227 Maadam, Smt. Poonamben Hematbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Jamnagar (Gujarat)
228 Madhav, Shri Kuruva Gorantla Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Hindupur (Andhra Pradesh)
229 Madhavi, Ms. Goddeti Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Araku (ST)(Andhra Pradesh)
230 Mahant, Smt. Jyotsna Charandas Indian National Congress Korba (Chhattisgarh)
231 Mahaswamiji, Dr. Jaisidheshwar Shivachary Bharatiya Janata Party Solapur (SC)(Maharashtra)
232 Mahato, Shri Bidyut Baran Bharatiya Janata Party Jamshedpur (Jharkhand)
233 Mahato, Shri Jyotirmay Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Purulia (West Bengal)
234 Mahtab, Shri Bhartruhari Biju Janata Dal Cuttack (Odisha)
235 Mahto, Shri Baidyanath Prasad Janata Dal (United) Valmiki Nagar (Bihar)
236 Majhi, Shri Ramesh Chandra Biju Janata Dal Nabarangpur (ST)(Odisha)
237 Majumdar, Dr. Sukanta Bharatiya Janata Party Balurghat (West Bengal)
238 Mal, Shri Asit Kumar All India Trinamool Congress Bolpur (SC)(West Bengal)
239 Mallah, Shri Kripanath Bharatiya Janata Party Karimganj (SC)(Assam)
240 Mallick, Smt. Rajashree Biju Janata Dal Jagatsinghpur (SC)(Odisha)
241 Malothu, Smt. Kavitha Telangana Rashtra Samithi Mahabubabad (ST)(Telangana)
242 Mandal, Shri Ajay Kumar Janata Dal (United) Bhagalpur (Bihar)
243 Mandal, Smt. Manjulata Biju Janata Dal Bhadrak (SC)(Odisha)
244 Mandal, Shri Rampreet Janata Dal (United) Jhanjharpur (Bihar)
245 Mandavi, Shri Mohan Bharatiya Janata Party Kanker (ST)(Chhattisgarh)
246 Mandlik, Shri Sanjay Sadashivrao Shiv Sena Kolhapur (Maharashtra)
247 Mann, Shri Bhagwant Aam Aadmi Party Sangrur (Punjab)
248 Maran, Thiru Dayanidhi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Chennai Central (Tamil Nadu)
249 Masoodi, Shri Hasnain Jammu and Kashmir National Conference Anantnag (Jammu and Kashmir)
250 Maurya, Dr. Sanghamitra Bharatiya Janata Party Badaun (Uttar Pradesh)
251 Meena, Shri Arjunlal Bharatiya Janata Party Udaipur (ST)(Rajasthan)
252 Meena, Smt. Jaskaur Bharatiya Janata Party Dausa (ST)(Rajasthan)
253 Meghwal, Shri Arjun Ram Bharatiya Janata Party Bikaner (SC)(Rajasthan)
254 Mendhe, Shri Sunil Baburao Bharatiya Janata Party Bhandara-Gondiya (Maharashtra)
255 Mishra, Shri Janardan Bharatiya Janata Party Rewa (Madhya Pradesh)
256 Misra, Shri Ajay (Teni) Bharatiya Janata Party Kheri (Uttar Pradesh)
257 Misra, Shri Pinaki Biju Janata Dal Puri (Odisha)
258 Modi, Shri Narendra Bharatiya Janata Party Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)
259 Mohammed, Shri Faizal P.P. Nationalist Congress Party Lakshadweep (ST)(Lakshadweep)
260 Mohan, Shri P. C. Bharatiya Janata Party Bangalore Central (Karnataka)
261 Mohanty, Shri Anubhav Biju Janata Dal Kendrapara (Odisha)
262 Moitra, Ms. Mahua All India Trinamool Congress Krishnanagar (West Bengal)
263 Mondal, Smt. Pratima All India Trinamool Congress Jaynagar (SC)(West Bengal)
264 Mondal, Shri Sunil Kumar All India Trinamool Congress Bardhaman Purba (SC)(West Bengal)
265 Munda, Shri Arjun Bharatiya Janata Party Khunti (ST)(Jharkhand)
266 Munde, Dr. Pritam Gopinath Bharatiya Janata Party Beed (Maharashtra)
267 Muniswamy, Shri S. Bharatiya Janata Party Kolar (SC)(Karnataka)
268 Munjpara, Dr. Mahendrabhai Bharatiya Janata Party Surendranagar (Gujarat)
269 Muraleedharan, Shri K. Indian National Congress Vadakara (Kerala)
270 Murmu, Ms. Chandrani Biju Janata Dal Keonjhar (ST)(Odisha)
271 Murmu, Shri Khagen Bharatiya Janata Party Maldaha Uttar (West Bengal)
272 Nagar, Shri Malook Bahujan Samaj Party Bijnor (Uttar Pradesh)
273 Nagar, Shri Rodmal Bharatiya Janata Party Rajgarh (Madhya Pradesh)
274 Naik, Shri Raja Amareshwara Bharatiya Janata Party Raichur (ST)(Karnataka)
275 Naik, Shri Shripad Yesso Bharatiya Janata Party North Goa (Goa)
276 Naik-Nimbalkar, Shri Ranjeetsinha Hindurao Bharatiya Janata Party Madha (Maharashtra)
277 Namgyal, Shri Jamyang Tsering Bharatiya Janata Party Ladakh (Jammu and Kashmir)
278 Narayanaswamy, Shri A. Bharatiya Janata Party Chitradurga (SC)(Karnataka)
279 Natarajan, Shri P.R. Communist Party of India (Marxist) Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu)
280 Nath, Shri Balak Bharatiya Janata Party Alwar (Rajasthan)
281 Nath, Shri Nakul K. Indian National Congress Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh)
282 Nete, Shri Ashok Mahadeorao Bharatiya Janata Party Gadchiroli-Chimur (ST)(Maharashtra)
283 Nishad, Shri Ajay Bharatiya Janata Party Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
284 Nishad, Shri Praveen Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Sant Kabir Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)
285 Nishank, Dr. Ramesh Pokhriyal Bharatiya Janata Party Hardwar (Uttarakhand)
286 Oja, Smt. Queen Bharatiya Janata Party Gauhati (Assam)
287 Oram, Shri Jual Bharatiya Janata Party Sundargarh (ST)(Odisha)
288 Owaisi, Shri Asaduddin All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen Hyderabad (Telangana)
289 P.K., Shri Kunhalikutty Indian Union Muslim League Malappuram (Kerala)
290 Paarivendhar, Dr. T.R. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Perambalur (Tamil Nadu)
291 Pachauri, Shri Satyadev Bharatiya Janata Party Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
292 Pal , Shri Jagdambika Bharatiya Janata Party Domariyaganj (Uttar Pradesh)
293 Pala, Shri Vincent H Indian National Congress Shillong (ST)(Meghalaya)
294 Palanimanickam, Shri S.S. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Thanjavur (Tamil Nadu)
295 Panda, Shri Basanta Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Kalahandi (Odisha)
296 Pandey, Dr. Mahendra Nath Bharatiya Janata Party Chandauli (Uttar Pradesh)
297 Pandey, Shri Ritesh Bahujan Samaj Party Ambedkar Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)
298 Pandey, Shri Santosh Bharatiya Janata Party Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
299 Paras, Shri Pashupati Kumar Lok Jan Shakti Party Hajipur (SC)(Bihar)
300 Parkash, Shri Som Bharatiya Janata Party Hoshiarpur (SC)(Punjab)
301 Parthiban, Shri S.R. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Salem (Tamil Nadu)
302 Pasunoori, Shri Dayakar Telangana Rashtra Samithi Warangal (SC)(Telangana)
303 Paswan, Shri Chhedi Bharatiya Janata Party Sasaram (SC)(Bihar)
304 Paswan, Shri Chirag Lok Jan Shakti Party Jamui (SC)(Bihar)
305 Paswan, Shri Kamlesh Bharatiya Janata Party Bansgaon (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
306 Paswan, Shri Ramchandra Lok Jan Shakti Party Samastipur (SC)(Bihar)
307 Patel, Smt. Anupriya Apna Dal Mirzapur (Uttar Pradesh)
308 Patel, Shri Devji Mansingram Bharatiya Janata Party Jalore (Rajasthan)
309 Patel, Shri Gajendra Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Khargone (ST)(Madhya Pradesh)
310 Patel, Shri Hasmukhbhai Somabhai Bharatiya Janata Party Ahmedabad East (Gujarat)
311 Patel, Dr. K. C. Bharatiya Janata Party Valsad (ST)(Gujarat)
312 Patel, Smt. Keshari Devi Bharatiya Janata Party Phulpur (Uttar Pradesh)
313 Patel, Shri Lalubhai Babubhai Bharatiya Janata Party Daman and Diu (Daman and Diu)
314 Patel, Shri Mitesh Rameshbhai (Bakabhai) Bharatiya Janata Party Anand (Gujarat)
315 Patel, Shri Parbhatbhai Savabhai Bharatiya Janata Party Banaskantha (Gujarat)
316 Patel, Shri Prahlad Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Damoh (Madhya Pradesh)
317 Patel, Shri R.K. Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Banda (Uttar Pradesh)
318 Patel, Smt. Shardaben Anilbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Mehsana (Gujarat)
319 Pathak, Smt. Riti Bharatiya Janata Party Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh)
320 Pathak, Shri Subrata Bharatiya Janata Party Kannauj (Uttar Pradesh)
321 Patil, Shri Bheemrao Baswanthrao Telangana Rashtra Samithi Zahirabad (Telangana)
322 Patil, Shri C. R. Bharatiya Janata Party Navsari (Gujarat)
323 Patil, Shri Hemant Shiv Sena Hingoli (Maharashtra)
324 Patil, Shri Kapil Moreshwar Bharatiya Janata Party Bhiwandi (Maharashtra)
325 Patil, Shri Sanjay(Kaka) Ramchandra Bharatiya Janata Party Sangli (Maharashtra)
326 Patil, Shri Unmesh Bhaiyyasaheb Bharatiya Janata Party Jalgaon (Maharashtra)
327 Pawar, Dr. Bharti Pravin Bharatiya Janata Party Dindori (ST)(Maharashtra)
328 Pfoze, Shri Lorho S. Naga Peoples Front Outer Manipur (ST)(Manipur)
329 Poddar, Smt. Aparupa All India Trinamool Congress Arambagh (SC)(West Bengal)
330 Pon, Shri Gautham Sigamani Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Kallakurichi (Tamil Nadu)
331 Pothuganti, Shri Ramulu Telangana Rashtra Samithi Nagarkurnool (SC)(Telangana)
332 Prakash, Adv. Adoor Indian National Congress Attingal (Kerala)
333 Pramanik, Shri Nisith Bharatiya Janata Party Coochbehar (SC)(West Bengal)
334 Prasad, Shri Chandeshwar Janata Dal (United) Jahanabad (Bihar)
335 Prasad, Shri Ravi Shankar Bharatiya Janata Party Patna Sahib (Bihar)
336 Prasad, Shri V. Srinivas Bharatiya Janata Party Chamrajanagar (SC)(Karnataka)
337 Prathapan, Shri T.N. Indian National Congress Thrissur (Kerala)
338 Premachandran, Shri N.K. Revolutionary Socialist Party Kollam (Kerala)
339 Pujari, Shri Suresh Bharatiya Janata Party Bargarh (Odisha)
340 Raghavan, Shri M. K. Indian National Congress Kozhikode (Kerala)
341 Raghavendra, Shri B. Y. Bharatiya Janata Party Shimoga (Karnataka)
342 Rahaman, Shri Khalilur All India Trinamool Congress Jangipur (West Bengal)
343 Rai, Shri Nityanand Bharatiya Janata Party Ujiarpur (Bihar)
344 Raja, Shri Andimuthu Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Nilgiris (SC)(Tamil Nadu)
345 Rajenimbalkar, Shri Omprakash Bhupalsinh alias Pawan Shiv Sena Osmanabad (Maharashtra)
346 Rajkumar, Dr. Ranjan Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Inner Manipur (Manipur)
347 Rajoria, Dr. Manoj Bharatiya Janata Party Karauli-Dholpur (SC)(Rajasthan)
348 Rajput, Shri Mukesh Bharatiya Janata Party Farrukhabad (Uttar Pradesh)
349 Ram, Shri Shiromani Bahujan Samaj Party Shrawasti (Uttar Pradesh)
350 Ram, Shri Vishnu Dayal Bharatiya Janata Party Palamu (SC)(Jharkhand)
351 Ram Mohan Naidu, Shri Kinjarapu Telugu Desam Party Srikakulam (Andhra Pradesh)
352 Ramalingam, Shri S. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Mayiladuthurai (Tamil Nadu)
353 Ramesh, Shri T.R.V.S. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Cuddalore (Tamil Nadu)
354 Rana, Smt Navnit Ravi Independents Amravati (SC)(Maharashtra)
355 Rangaiah, Shri Talari Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Anantapur (Andhra Pradesh)
356 Rao, Shri Nama Nageswara Telangana Rashtra Samithi Khammam (Telangana)
357 Rao, Shri Soyam Babu Bharatiya Janata Party Adilabad (ST)(Telangana)
358 Rao Inderjit Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Gurgaon (Haryana)
359 Rathod, Shri Dipsinh Shankarsinh Bharatiya Janata Party Sabarkantha (Gujarat)
360 Rathod, Shri Ratansinh Magansinh Bharatiya Janata Party Panchmahal (Gujarat)
361 Rathore, Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Jaipur Rural (Rajasthan)
362 Rathva, Smt. Gitaben Vajesingbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Chhota Udaipur (ST)(Gujarat)
363 Raut, Shri Vinayak Bhaurao Shiv Sena Ratnagiri-Sindhudurg (Maharashtra)
364 Raveendranath Kumar, Shri P. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Theni (Tamil Nadu)
365 Ravikumar, Shri D. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Viluppuram (SC)(Tamil Nadu)
366 Rawat, Shri Ashok Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Misrikh (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
367 Rawat, Shri Tirath Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Garhwal (Uttarakhand)
368 Rawat, Shri Upendra Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Barabanki (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
369 Ray, Smt. Sandhya Bharatiya Janata Party Bhind (SC)(Madhya Pradesh)
370 Reddeppa, Shri N. Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Chittoor (SC)(Andhra Pradesh)
371 Reddy, Shri Adala Prabhakara Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Nellore (Andhra Pradesh)
372 Reddy, Shri Anumala Revanth Indian National Congress Malkajgiri (Telangana)
373 Reddy, Dr. Gaddam Ranjith Telangana Rashtra Samithi Chevella (Telangana)
374 Reddy, Shri Komati Reddy Venkat Indian National Congress Bhongir (Telangana)
375 Reddy, Shri Kotha Prabhakar Telangana Rashtra Samithi Medak (Telangana)
376 Reddy, Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party ongole (Andhra Pradesh)
377 Reddy, Shri Manne Srinivas Telangana Rashtra Samithi Mahabubnagar (Telangana)
378 Reddy, Shri Midhun Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party rajampet (Andhra Pradesh)
379 Reddy, Shri Pocha Brahmananda Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Nandyal (Andhra Pradesh)
380 Reddy, Shri Uttam Kumar Nalamada Indian National Congress Nalgonda (Telangana)
381 Reddy, Shri Y. S. Avinash Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party kadapa (Andhra Pradesh)
382 Rehman, Shri Haji Fazlur Bahujan Samaj Party Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
383 Revanna, Shri Prajwal Janata Dal (Secular) Hassan (Karnataka)
384 Rijiju, Shri Kiren Bharatiya Janata Party Arunachal West (Arunachal Pradesh)
385 Roy, Dr. Jayanta Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Jalpaiguri (SC)(West Bengal)
386 Roy, Smt. Mala All India Trinamool Congress Kolkata Dakshin (West Bengal)
387 Roy, Shri Rajdeep Bharatiya Janata Party Silchar (Assam)
388 Roy, Prof. Saugata All India Trinamool Congress Dum Dum (West Bengal)
389 Roy (Banerjee), Smt. Satabdi All India Trinamool Congress Birbhum (West Bengal)
390 Rudy, Shri Rajiv Pratap Bharatiya Janata Party Saran (Bihar)
391 Ruhi, Ms. Nusrat Jahan All India Trinamool Congress Basirhat (West Bengal)
392 Sadique, Mohammad Indian National Congress Faridkot (SC)(Punjab)
393 Sagar, Shri Arun Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Shahjahanpur (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
394 Sahoo, Shri Mahesh Biju Janata Dal Dhenkanal (Odisha)
395 Sahu, Shri Chandra Sekhar Biju Janata Dal Berhampur (Odisha)
396 Sahu, Shri Chunni Lal Bharatiya Janata Party Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)
397 Sai, Smt. Gomati Bharatiya Janata Party Raigarh (ST)(Chhattisgarh)
398 Samanta, Shri Achyutananda Biju Janata Dal Kandhamal (Odisha)
399 Sambhajirao Mane, Shri Dhairyasheel Shiv Sena Hatkanangle (Maharashtra)
400 Sangma, Kum. Agatha K. National People’s Party Tura (ST)(Meghalaya)
401 Sao, Shri Arun Bharatiya Janata Party Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
402 Sarangi, Smt. Aparajita Bharatiya Janata Party Bhubaneswar (Odisha)
403 Sarangi, Shri Pratap Chandra Bharatiya Janata Party Balasore (Odisha)
404 Sarania, Shri Naba (Hira) Kumar Independents Kokrajhar (ST)(Assam)
405 Saraswati, Shri Sumedhanand Bharatiya Janata Party Sikar (Rajasthan)
406 Sardinha, Shri Francisco Indian National Congress South Goa (Goa)
407 Sarkar, Shri Jagannath Bharatiya Janata Party Ranaghat (SC)(West Bengal)
408 Sarkar, Dr. Subhas Bharatiya Janata Party Bankura (West Bengal)
409 Saruta, Smt. Renuka Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Surguja (ST)(Chhattisgarh)
410 Satyanarayana, Shri M V V Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)
411 Saumitra, Shri Khan Bharatiya Janata Party Bishnupur (SC)(West Bengal)
412 Sawant, Shri Arvind Ganpat Shiv Sena Mumbai-South (Maharashtra)
413 Selvam, Shri Ganesan Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Kancheepuram (SC)(Tamil Nadu)
414 Selvaraj, Shri M. Communist Party of India Nagapattinam (SC)(Tamil Nadu)
415 Sen, Dr. Jadon Chandra Bharatiya Janata Party Firozabad (Uttar Pradesh)
416 Senthilkumar. S., Shri DNV Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Dharmapuri (Tamil Nadu)
417 Seth, Shri Sanjay Bharatiya Janata Party Ranchi (Jharkhand)
418 Sethi, Smt. Sarmistha Biju Janata Dal Jajpur (SC)(Odisha)
419 Shah, Shri Amit Anil Chandra Bharatiya Janata Party Gandhinagar (Gujarat)
420 Shah, Smt. Mala Rajya Laxmi Bharatiya Janata Party Tehri Garhwal (Uttarakhand)
421 Shanmuga Sundaram, Shri K. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Pollachi (Tamil Nadu)
422 Sharma, Shri Anurag Bharatiya Janata Party Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh)
423 Sharma, Dr. Arvind Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Rohtak (Haryana)
424 Sharma, Shri Jugal Kishore Bharatiya Janata Party Jammu (Jammu and Kashmir)
425 Sharma, Shri Kuldeep Rai Indian National Congress Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Andaman and Nicobar Islands)
426 Sharma, Dr. Mahesh Bharatiya Janata Party Gautam Buddha Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)
427 Sharma, Shri Ram Swaroop Bharatiya Janata Party Mandi (Himachal Pradesh)
428 Sharma, Shri Vishnu Dutt Bharatiya Janata Party Khajuraho (Madhya Pradesh)
429 Shejwalkar, Shri Vivek Narayan Bharatiya Janata Party Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)
430 Shekhawat, Shri Gajendra Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
431 Shetty, Shri Gopal Chinayya Bharatiya Janata Party Mumbai-North (Maharashtra)
432 Shinde, Dr. Shrikant Eknath Shiv Sena Kalyan (Maharashtra)
433 Shrangre, Shri Sudhakar Tukaram Bharatiya Janata Party Latur (SC)(Maharashtra)
434 Shri Rahul Ramesh Shewale Shiv Sena Mumbai South-Central (Maharashtra)
435 Shri Syed Imtiaz Jaleel All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen Aurangabad (Maharashtra)
436 Shukla, Shri Ravindra Shyamnarayan alias Ravi Kishan Bharatiya Janata Party Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh)
437 Shyal, Dr. Bharatiben Dhirubhai Bharatiya Janata Party Bhavnagar (Gujarat)
438 Siddeshwara, Shri Gowdar Mallikarjunappa Bharatiya Janata Party Davanagere (Karnataka)
439 Sigriwal, Shri Janardan Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Maharajganj (Bihar)
440 Simha, Shri Prathap Bharatiya Janata Party Mysore (Karnataka)
441 Singari, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh)
442 Singh, Dr. Amar Indian National Congress Fatehgarh Sahib (SC)(Punjab)
443 Singh, Shri Arjun Bharatiya Janata Party Barrackpur (West Bengal)
444 Singh, Shri Atul Kumar Bahujan Samaj Party Ghosi (Uttar Pradesh)
445 Singh, Shri Bhola Bharatiya Janata Party Bulandshahr (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
446 Singh, Shri Brijbhushan Sharan Bharatiya Janata Party Kaiserganj (Uttar Pradesh)
447 Singh, Shri Brijendra Bharatiya Janata Party Hisar (Haryana)
448 Singh, Shri Chandan Lok Jan Shakti Party Nawada (Bihar)
449 Singh, Shri Devendra (Alias) Bhole Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Akbarpur (Uttar Pradesh)
450 Singh, Shri Dushyant Bharatiya Janata Party Jhalawar-Baran (Rajasthan)
451 Singh, Shri Ganesh Bharatiya Janata Party Satna (Madhya Pradesh)
452 Singh, Shri Giriraj Bharatiya Janata Party Begusarai (Bihar)
453 Singh, Smt. Himadri Bharatiya Janata Party Shahdol (ST)(Madhya Pradesh)
454 Singh, Dr. Jitendra Bharatiya Janata Party Udhampur (Jammu and Kashmir)
455 Singh, Smt. Kavita Janata Dal (United) Siwan (Bihar)
456 Singh, Shri Kirti Vardhan Bharatiya Janata Party Gonda (Uttar Pradesh)
457 Singh, Shri Lallu Bharatiya Janata Party Faizabad (Uttar Pradesh)
458 Singh, Shri Mahabali Janata Dal (United) Karakat (Bihar)
459 Singh, Shri Nayab Bharatiya Janata Party Kurukshetra (Haryana)
460 Singh, Shri Parvesh Sahib Bharatiya Janata Party West Delhi (NCT of Delhi)
461 Singh, Shri Pashupati Nath Bharatiya Janata Party Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
462 Singh, Shri Pradeep Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Araria (Bihar)
463 Singh, Shri Radha Mohan Bharatiya Janata Party Purvi Champaran (Bihar)
464 Singh, Shri Raj Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Arrah (Bihar)
465 Singh, Shri Rajbahadur Bharatiya Janata Party Sagar (Madhya Pradesh)
466 Singh, Shri Rajiv Ranjan (Lalan) Janata Dal (United) Munger (Bihar)
467 Singh, Shri Rajnath Bharatiya Janata Party Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)
468 Singh, Shri Rajveer (Raju Bhaiya) Bharatiya Janata Party Etah (Uttar Pradesh)
469 Singh, Shri Rakesh Bharatiya Janata Party Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)
470 Singh, Shri Ravneet Indian National Congress Ludhiana (Punjab)
471 Singh, Dr. Satya Pal Bharatiya Janata Party Baghpat (Uttar Pradesh)
472 Singh, Shri Shyam Yadav Bahujan Samaj Party Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh)
473 Singh, Shri Sunil Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Chatra (Jharkhand)
474 Singh, Shri Sushil Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Aurangabad (Bihar)
475 Singh, Shri Uday Pratap Bharatiya Janata Party Hoshangabad (Madhya Pradesh)
476 Singh, Shri Virendra Bharatiya Janata Party Ballia (Uttar Pradesh)
477 Singh Deo, Smt. Sangeeta Kumari Bharatiya Janata Party Bolangir (Odisha)
478 Sinha, Shri Jayant Bharatiya Janata Party Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
479 Solanki, Dr. (Prof.) Kirit Premjibhai Bharatiya Janata Party Ahmedabad West (SC)(Gujarat)
480 Solanky, Shri Mahendra Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Dewas (SC)(Madhya Pradesh)
481 Soni, Shri Sunil Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
482 Sonkar, Shri Vinod Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Kaushambi (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
483 Soren, Shri Sunil Bharatiya Janata Party Dumka (ST)(Jharkhand)
484 Sreekandan, Shri V.K. Indian National Congress Palakkad (Kerala)
485 Sridhar, Shri Kotagiri Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Eluru (Andhra Pradesh)
486 Subba, Shri Indra Hang Sikkim Krantikari Morcha Sikkim (Sikkim)
487 Subbarayan, Shri K. Communist Party of India Tiruppur (Tamil Nadu)
488 Sudhakaran, Shri Kumbakudi Indian National Congress Kannur (Kerala)
489 Sule, Smt. Supriya Sadanand Nationalist Congress Party Baramati (Maharashtra)
490 Suman, Dr. Alok Kumar Janata Dal (United) Gopalganj (SC)(Bihar)
491 Suresh, Shri Doddaalahalli Kempegowda Indian National Congress Bangalore Rural (Karnataka)
492 Suresh, Shri Nandigam Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Bapatla (SC)(Andhra Pradesh)
493 Surya, Shri L.S. Tejasvi Bharatiya Janata Party Bangalore South (Karnataka)
494 Swami Maharaj, Dr. Sakshi Ji Bharatiya Janata Party Unnao (Uttar Pradesh)
495 Tadas, Shri Ramdas Chandrabhanji Bharatiya Janata Party Wardha (Maharashtra)
496 Tagore B, Shri Manickam Indian National Congress Virudhunagar (Tamil Nadu)
497 Tamta, Shri Ajay Bharatiya Janata Party Almora (SC)(Uttarakhand)
498 Tatkare, Shri Sunil Dattatray Nationalist Congress Party Raigad (Maharashtra)
499 Teli, Shri Rameswar Bharatiya Janata Party Dibrugarh (Assam)
500 Tewari, Shri Manish Indian National Congress Anandpur Sahib (Punjab)
501 Thakur, Shri Anurag Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh)
502 Thakur, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
503 Thakur, Shri Shantanu Bharatiya Janata Party Bangaon (SC)(West Bengal)
504 Thangapandian, Smt. T. Sumathy (A) Thamizhachi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Chennai South (Tamil Nadu)
505 Tharoor, Dr. Shashi Indian National Congress Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)
506 Thirunavukkarasar, Shri Su Indian National Congress Tiruchirappalli (Tamil Nadu)
507 Thol, Shri Thirumaa Valavan Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi Chidambaram (SC)(Tamil Nadu)
508 Tiwari, Shri Manoj Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party North East Delhi (NCT of Delhi)
509 Tomar, Shri Narendra Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Morena (Madhya Pradesh)
510 Tripathi, Shri Ramapati Ram Bharatiya Janata Party Deoria (Uttar Pradesh)
511 Tripura, Shri Rebati Bharatiya Janata Party Tripura East (ST)(Tripura)
512 Tudu, Shri Bishweswar Bharatiya Janata Party Mayurbhanj (ST)(Odisha)
513 Tumane, Shri Krupal Balaji Shiv Sena Ramtek (SC)(Maharashtra)
514 Udasi, Shri Shivkumar Chanabasappa Bharatiya Janata Party Haveri (Karnataka)
515 Uikey, Shri Durga Das Bharatiya Janata Party Betul (ST)(Madhya Pradesh)
516 Ulaka, Shri Saptagiri Sankar Indian National Congress Koraput (ST)(Odisha)
517 Unnithan, Shri Rajmohan Indian National Congress Kasaragod (Kerala)
518 Vajendla Rao, Smt. Poonam (Mahajan) Bharatiya Janata Party Mumbai-North-Central (Maharashtra)
519 Vallabbhaneni, Shri Balashowry Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Machilipatnam (Andhra Pradesh)
520 Vanga, Smt. Geetha Viswanath Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh)
521 Vasanthakumar, Shri H. Indian National Congress Kanniyakumari (Tamil Nadu)
522 Vasava, Shri Mansukhbhai Dhanjibhai Bharatiya Janata Party Bharuch (Gujarat)
523 Vasava, Shri Prabhubhai Nagarbhai Bharatiya Janata Party Bardoli (ST)(Gujarat)
524 Ve., Shri Vaithilingam Indian National Congress Puducherry (Puducherry)
525 Velusamy, Shri P. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Dindigul (Tamil Nadu)
526 Venkata Satyavathi, Dr. Beesetti Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Anakapalle (Andhra Pradesh)
527 Venkatesan, Shri S. Communist Party of India (Marxist) Madurai (Tamil Nadu)
528 Verma, Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Jalaun (SC)(Uttar Pradesh)
529 Verma, Shri Rajesh Bharatiya Janata Party Sitapur (Uttar Pradesh)
530 Verma, Smt. Rekha Arun Bharatiya Janata Party Dhaurahra (Uttar Pradesh)
531 Vichare, Shri Rajan Baburao Shiv Sena Thane (Maharashtra)
532 Vikhepatil, Dr. Sujay Radhakrishna Bharatiya Janata Party Ahmednagar (Maharashtra)
533 Vishnu Prasad, Dr. M.K. Indian National Congress Arani (Tamil Nadu)
534 Y, Shri Devendrappa Bharatiya Janata Party Bellary (ST)(Karnataka)
535 Yadav, Shri Akhilesh Samajwadi Party Azamgarh (Uttar Pradesh)
536 Yadav, Shri Ashok Kumar Bharatiya Janata Party Madhubani (Bihar)
537 Yadav, Shri Dinesh Chandra Janata Dal (United) Madhepura (Bihar)
538 Yadav, Shri Giridhari Janata Dal (United) Banka (Bihar)
539 Yadav, Shri Krishna Pal Singh Bharatiya Janata Party Guna (Madhya Pradesh)
540 Yadav, Shri Mulayam Singh Samajwadi Party Mainpuri (Uttar Pradesh)
541 Yadav, Shri Ram Kripal Bharatiya Janata Party Pataliputra (Bihar)
542 Yepthomi, Shri Tokheho Nationalist Democratic Progressive Party Nagaland (Nagaland)

Source:Lok Sabha India

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will announce its verdict in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case on July 17

International Court of Justice

Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested on March 3, 2016, from Balochistan on allegations of espionage and terrorism.

In his trial at a military court, Jadhav had confessed to his involvement in terrorist plots. He was subsequently sentenced to death in 2017.

On April 10, 2017, Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa had endorsed the death penalty for Jadhav. In June 2017, he had filed a mercy petition against the death penalty.

During the hearing of the case in the international court, India denied Jadhav was a spy and had asked the ICJ to order his release because he was denied consular access and not allowed to choose his own defence lawyer.

Following is the full text of his voluntarily confession published by the Pakistani authority :

“My name is Commander Kulbhushan Yadav and I am the serving officer of Indian Navy. I am from the cadre of engineering department of Indian Navy and my cover name was Hussein Mubarik Patel, which I had taken for doing some intelligence gathering for Indian agencies.

I joined the National Defence Academy in 1987 and subsequently joined Indian Navy in Jan 1991 and subsequently served for the Indian Navy till around December 2001 when the Parliament attack occurred and that is when I started contributing my services towards gathering of information and intelligence within India.

I live in the city of Mumbai in India. I am still the serving officer in the Indian Navy and will be due for retirement by 2022 as a commissioned officer in Indian Navy after having completed 14 years of service by 2002.

I commenced intelligence operation in 2003 and established a small business in Chabahar in Iran as I was able to achieve undetected existence and visits to Karachi in 2003 and 2004 and having done some basic assignments within India for RAW.

I was picked up by RAW in 2013 end. Ever since I have been directing various activities in Balochistan and Karachi at the behest of RAW and deteriorating law and order situation in Karachi, I was basically the man for Mr Ani Kumar Gupta who is the joint secretary of RAW and his contacts in Pakistan especially in Balochistan Student Organisation.

My purpose was to hold meetings with Baloch insurgents and carry out activities with their collaboration.

These activities have been of criminal nature, leading to killing of or maiming of Pakistani citizens.

I realise during this process that RAW is involved in some activities related to the Baloch liberation movement within Pakistan and the region around it.

There are finances which are fed into the Baloch movement through various contacts or various ways and means into the Baloch liberation (movement) and various activities of the Baloch liberation and RAW handlers go towards activities which are criminal, which are anti-national, which can lead to maiming or killing of people within Pakistan and mostly these activities were centred around of what I have knowledge is of ports of Gwadar, Pasni Jewani and various other installations, which are around the coast damaging various other installations, which are in Balochistan.

So the activity seems to be revolving and trying to create a criminal sort of mindset within the Baloch liberation which leads to instability within Pakistan. In my pursuit towards achieving the set targets by my handlers in RAW, I was trying to cross over into Pakistan from the Saravan border in Iran on March 3, 2016, and was apprehended by Pakistani authorities while on the Pakistani side and the main aim of this crossing over into Pakistan was to hold (a) meeting with Baloch separatists in Balochistan for carrying out various activities, which they were supposed to undertake and carrying backwards the messages which had to deliver to Indian agencies.

The main issues regarding this were that they were planning to conduct some operations within the next immediate (near) future so that was to be discussed mainly and that was the main aim of trying to coming into Pakistan.

So that moment I realised that my intelligence operations have been compromised on my being detained in Pakistan, I revealed that I am an Indian naval officer, and it is on mentioning that I am Indian naval officer, the total perception of the establishment of the Pakistani side changed and they treated me very honourably and they did utmost respect and due regards and have handled me subsequently on a more professional and proper courteous way and they have handled me in a way that befits that of an officer and once I realised that I have been compromised in my process of intelligence operations, I decided to just end the mess I have landed myself in and just wanted to subsequently move on and cooperate with the authorities in removing complications which I have landed myself and my family members into, and whatever I am stating just now, it is the truth and it is not under any duress or pressure. I am doing it totally out of my own desire to mention and come clean out of this entire process which I have gone through last 14 years.”

Dawood’s aide Moti faces extradition trial to the US in Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London

July 04 2019: During the ongoing extradition trial of 51-year-old Jabir Moti, a “high-ranking member of D-Company”, Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London on Wednesday[July 03 2019] heard that Dawood, wanted for coordinated bombings in Mumbai in 1993 that killed more than 200 people, is currently in exile in Pakistan.

“The head of D-Company is Dawood Ibrahim, an Indian Muslim currently in exile in Pakistan. Dawood Ibrahim and his brother and top lieutenant, Anis Ibrahim, have been fugitives from India since 1993, when D-Company was implicated in coordinated bombings in Mumbai that killed more than 200 people,” according to excerpts of a US Attorney’s affidavit for extradition read out by Moti’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald.

“The present investigation has revealed that Jabir Motiwala is a top lieutenant in D-Company who reports directly to Dawood,” he added.

Fitzgerald was trying to establish that his client being linked by the US authorities to Dawood and D-Company would mean he would be subjected to “special administrative measures” (SAMs) at the Metropolitan Correctional Centre in New York, which would involve isolation and put him at the risk of harm due to his suicidal tendencies.

Dawood, who heads a vast and multifaceted illegal business, has emerged as India’s most wanted terrorist after the 1993 Mumbai bombings.

Dawood’s aide Moti faces extradition to the US on charges of money laundering, extortion and conspiracy to import unlawful substances such as heroine.

Moti was arrested by Scotland Yard officers from a London hotel in August 2018 in connection with a US grand jury indictment following an extensive FBI investigation.

Emperor Akihito of Japan reported his abdication to sun goddess Amaterasu Omikami in a palace ceremony, at Tokyo

Japan Tuesday, April 30, 2019.

The government of Japan has officially approved the abdication ceremony of Emperor Akihito. This provides the legal basis to allow him to step down from the throne after a one-off law was passed to allow him to retire.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga headed the panel which decided to also have a ceremony at the National Theater in Tokyo that celebrates 30 years of His Imperial Majesty’s reign on 24 February 2019, reported the Japan Times.

Emperor Akihito began his abdication rituals at a Shinto shrine Tuesday morning as Japan embraces the end of his reign with reminiscence and hope for a new era. Akihito, 85, took the throne in 1989 and devoted his career to making amends for a war fought in his father’s name while bringing the aloof monarchy closer to the people.

In a palace ceremony later in the day, Akihito will announce his retirement before other members of the royal family and top government officials.

Akihito, together with Empress Michiko, his wife of 60 years and the first commoner to marry an imperial heir, carved out an active role as a symbol of reconciliation, peace and democracy. His father, Hirohito, in whose name Japanese troops fought World War Two, was considered a living deity until after Japan’s defeat in 1945, when he renounced his divinity.

His reign runs through midnight when his son Crown Prince Naruhito becomes new emperor and his era begins.

Naruhito will ascend the Chrysanthemum throne Wednesday. In a separate ceremony, he will inherit the Imperial regalia of sword and jewel, as well as Imperial seals as proof of his succession as the nation’s 126th emperor in the world’s oldest hereditary monarchy from the 5th century.

Akihito reported his abdication in a ritual held in a sanctuary inside the palace grounds honoring the sun goddess Amaterasu Omikami, from whom mythology says the imperial line is descended. He was to do the same at two other sanctuaries honoring departed emperors and Shinto gods.

After his retirement,  Akihito will hold a new title, emperor emeritus, but he will be fully taken out off official duties and will no longer sign documents, receive foreign dignitaries, attend government events or perform palace rituals.

His son crown prince Naruhito, 59, will become emperor in separate ceremonies on Wednesday. Naruhito, who studied at Oxford, is likely to continue an active role and together with Harvard-educated Masako give the monarchy a cosmopolitan tinge.

Constitutional Power of the Emperor

Article 1. The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.
Article 2. The Imperial Throne shall be dynastic and succeeded to in accordance with the Imperial House Law passed by the Diet.

Article 3. The advice and approval of the Cabinet shall be required for all acts of the Emperor in matters of state, and the Cabinet shall be responsible therefor.

Article 4. The Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government.
The Emperor may delegate the performance of his acts in matters of state as may be provided by law.

Article 5. When, in accordance with the Imperial House Law, a Regency is established, the Regent shall perform his acts in matters of state in the Emperor’s name. In this case, paragraph one of the preceding article will be applicable.

Article 6. The Emperor shall appoint the Prime Minister as designated by the Diet.
The Emperor shall appoint the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court as designated by the Cabinet.

Article 7. The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state on behalf of the people:

Promulgation of amendments of the constitution, laws, cabinet orders and treaties.
Convocation of the Diet.
Dissolution of the House of Representatives.
Proclamation of general election of members of the Diet.
Attestation of the appointment and dismissal of Ministers of State and other officials as provided for by law, and of full powers and credentials of Ambassadors and Ministers.
Attestation of general and special amnesty, commutation of punishment, reprieve, and restoration of rights.
Awarding of honors.
Attestation of instruments of ratification and other diplomatic documents as provided for by law.
Receiving foreign ambassadors and ministers.
Performance of ceremonial functions.

Article 8. No property can be given to, or received by, the Imperial House, nor can any gifts be made therefrom, without the authorization of the Diet.