ICJ Kulbhushan Jadhav Case - from THE HAGUE Argument of Mr. Harish Salve

Print Page

When court should not issue Writ of Mandamus to Government of India to raise claim before International Court of Justice on behalf of its national?

 From the above discussion, it is clear that

International Law recognized both direct International

wrong        and indirect International wrong.     The present

being          not a case of        direct International wrong

committed by a foreign State, claim has been stated to

be covered under the           heading "indirect International

wrong".          Indirect International   wrong can include a

situation where National of A State caused injuries to

the National of State B.          States responsibility can be

fastened           only when there are circumstances  of   the

State being involved in causing injury to a foreign

National.           The State liability has not to be readily

inferred unless there are materials to show.

       45. There        is  one  more  aspect of  the  matter.

Any claim for compensation can always be laid according

to the municipal            law of the Country where cause of

action           arose.   Greigh while    considering indirect

International wrong          in "Chapter X" has referred to a



principle, viz., exhaustion of legal remedies.                                    It is

useful to extract the                        principle as stated in the

following words:

                  ""It is a well-established principle of international law that a

        state cannot succeed in a claim on behalf of its national before an

        international tribunal unless all the remedies available under the

        local law have been tried and found wanting. However, while this

        general proposition of the rule, and from the reasons behind it, are

        capable of being resolved by reference to such a proposition."

In the present case it is clear that although the

Emabassy of India, Riyadh, KSA had taken the claim of

the petitioner with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

KSA, no relief could be obtained diplomatically.                                  It is

true that in all cases                   it is not necessary that a claim

under      local            laws     be    raised.         But    the        aforesaid

principle is also a principle                            while considering            a

State to raise a claim before the International Court of

Justice.            There is one more aspect of the matter which

needs       consideration.                 As        per      the    Statute        of

International Court of Justice it is the State which can

be     a      party         to      the     dispute         raised       before     the



International            Court of Justice.                   Article 34(1) as

noted above provides              "only States may be parties in the

case before the Court."                 The decision as to             whether a

particular claim is to be raised in the International

Court of Justice            is primarily in the discretion of the

State.               Strake      in    his    International           Law    while

discussing State's responsibility under Chapter X noted

that State practice shows that most States                                  regard

sponsoring of the claim is entirely                                within their

discretion.          The following        is stated          by Strake in this

context:

                 "Sometimes it is expressed that this right corresponds to an

       administrative duty of the state towards such of its nationals as

       have suffered injury.      But state practice (for example, of the

       Department of State of the United Stats) shows that most       states

       regard the sponsoring of claims by nationals as entirely within their

       discretion.."

       46. The petitioner in the writ petition has prayed

for     a mandamus directing the Union of India to raise                         a

claim in the International Court of Justice for death

compensation          on account of           the death of petitioner's



husband on 18.05.1985.           In   the present case     the

petitioner in the Writ Petition             had claimed Rs.10

lakhs from the respondents         and under the orders of the

learned           Single   Judge,  petitioner   has   received

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as noted above.

       47. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of

the opinion            that   present is not a case      where

petitioner has made out a case for issuing a writ of

mandamus to the Government of India to raise the claim

before the International Court of Justice.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT:

  

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
------------------------------


     MARGRET D CRUZ A


Vs
      UNION OF INDIA
   

               ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J.
                         and
                A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
       
                 W.A. No.1271 of 2013
         
     Dated this the 03rd   day of February, 2016

 Citation;AIR 2016 (NOC)303 Kerala

Print Page