"The PML-N are the ones who mishandled the Kulbhushan Jadhav case," he said.
Qureshi said that the incumbent Imran Khan government was implementing the recommendations of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), adding that India wanted to delay the matter and drag Pakistan back to The Hague-based court.
"We are implementing the recommendations of the ICJ and we took measures on their advice. India didn't want consular access to Jadhav, rather wanted to drag Pakistan to the ICJ once again," he added.
Qureshi's statement comes after a bill, aimed at complying with the orders of the ICJ in the Jadhav case, was passed by the lower house of Parliament last week.
Pakistan has been calling on India to appoint a counsel for Jadhav in a review case, being heard in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
However, the Indian High Commission, raising question over the high court's decision to appoint a defence counsel in the case, has challenged the case.
Pakistan maintains that India is deliberately trying to linger the matter and accuse Pakistan for not complying with the orders of the ICJ.
Qureshi stated that the opposition political parties should refrain from putting hurdles in the adoption of the bill.
"The opposition should not show ignorance by making statements in this regard. It should avoid strengthening the Indian point of view," he said.
Retired Indian Navy officer Jadhav was sentenced to death in 2017 by a military court in Pakistan on charges of espionage and terrorism.
India had subsequently approached the ICJ against the denial of consular access to Jadhav, besides challenging the death sentence.
Pakistan maintains that it is ready to comply with the judgment of the ICJ. But accuses India for deliberately trying to drag the matter and ignoring Pakistan's demand to appoint a counsel in the case.
A three-member bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), comprising Chief Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, on Wednesday resumed hearing of the petition by Pakistan’s Ministry of Law and Justice seeking appointment of a lawyer for Jadhav.
Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan told the bench that to comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Pakistan last year promulgated the law, CJ (Review and Reconsideration) Ordinance, 2020, to enable Jadhav to avail himself of the statutory remedy, Dawn newspaper reported.
However, he argued, the Indian government deliberately avoided joining court’s proceedings and was raising objections to a trial before a Pakistani court and had declined to even appoint a counsel for the IHC’s proceedings saying it is tantamount to surrendering sovereign rights .
It appears the Indian government has objected, not for non-implementation of ICJ’s verdict but to engineer default on the basis of which it would [try to] justify going to the ICJ again, he said.
The chief justice expressed surprise that the Indian High Commission in Islamabad, which had approached the IHC seeking the release of five prisoners and had secured a decision in their favour, was questioning the legitimacy of the same court, the report said.
He observed that despite negative remarks of the Indian government about Pakistani courts, the IHC was considering the Jadhav case on humanitarian grounds to ensure a fair trial for him.
We are not against sovereign immunity of the Indian government but they should at least tell us how we would proceed to implement the ICJ’s decision, the chief justice remarked.
The Attorney General read out two notes verbale of the Indian government related to Jadhav and said India had rejected the suggestion (of the IHC) of appearing before the Pakistani court.
The chief justice asked him to remind the Indian government that appearing before the court did not mean a waiver of sovereignty and the court had acknowledged their sovereign rights.
At one point, when Justice Aurangzeb remarked that if the Indian government would not respond, the court might dismiss the petition, the attorney general argued: This is exactly what the Indian government wants.
The Attorney General believed if the matter was not pending before the IHC, the Indian authorities would have filed a contempt of court [petition] against Pakistani government with the ICJ for non-compliance of the latter’s decision .
Lawyer Hamid Khan was of the opinion that the government should not have introduced a Jadhav-specific law. The AG replied that the law was promulgated to comply with the ICJ direction.
The court asked the attorney general to take up the matter with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for its onward communication with the Indian authorities.
Further proceedings have been adjourned till June 15.
Jadhav, the 51-year-old retired Indian Navy officer, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage and terrorism in April 2017.
India approached the International Court of Justice against Pakistan for denial of consular access to Jadhav and challenging the death sentence.
The Hague-based ICJ ruled in July 2019 that Pakistan must undertake an “effective review and reconsideration” of the conviction and sentence of Jadhav and also to grant consular access to India without further delay.
The ICJ, in its 2019 verdict, had asked Pakistan to provide a proper forum for appeal against the sentence given to Jadhav by a military court.
The last time the two countries approached the ICJ was in September 1999, when Pakistan approached the top UN court over the shooting down of a Pakistani maritime reconnaissance aircraft Atlantique by the Indian Air Force(IAF) in the Kutch region on August 10, 1999, killing all 16 naval personnel on board. Pakistan claimed the plane was brought down in its air space and sought $60 million in damages from India for the incident.
On June 21, 2000, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled (14-2) that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute brought by Pakistan against India.
On November 19, 1999, the Court had decided that the written pleadings would first address the question of the jurisdiction of the Court in the case.
Pakistan maintained that Indian air force helicopters violated its territorial integrity by visiting the aircraft's crash site inside Pakistan territory, in an attempt to pick up items from the debris immediately after the incident.
Pakistan also claimed that India's actions constituted breaches of the 1991 Agreement on Prevention of Air Space Violations between both countries for which India must bear international responsibility.
Pakistan asked the Court to hold that India is obligated to make reparations to it for the loss of the navy aircraft and to the heirs of the Pakistani servicemen.
India had argued that the court did not have jurisdiction in the matter, citing an exemption it had filed in 1974 to exclude disputes between India and other Commonwealth states, and disputes covered by multilateral treaties.
The case was thrown out by the ICJ on the issue of jurisdiction and not on merits. Both parties had agreed that the question of jurisdiction would be decided first and only then would the issue of merits be taken up.
Notwithstanding its rejection of jurisdiction, the ICJ reminded both parties that the international obligations which they have undertaken still require that they seek a peaceful settlement of their disputes in good faith, including in particular the dispute arising out of the shooting down of the helicopter.
In May 1973, Pakistan filed proceedings against India concerning 195 Pakistani prisoners of war whom, according to Pakistan, India proposed to hand over to Bangladesh, which was planning to try them for acts of genocide and crimes against humanity.
India stated that there was no legal basis for the Court's jurisdiction in the matter and that Pakistan's application was without legal effect. The Court held public sittings to hear observations on the subject. India was not represented at the hearings.
In July 1973, Pakistan asked the Court to postpone further consideration of its request in order to facilitate negotiations with India. Before any written pleadings were filed, Pakistan told the Court that negotiations had taken place with India and the issue had been resolved bilaterally. Islamabad requested the Court to discontinue the proceedings.
In February 1971, India approached the top UN court following an incident involving the diversion to Pakistan of an Indian aircraft, which led to New Delhi suspending flights over its territory by Pakistan civil aircraft.
Pakistan told the court that this was in breach of the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation and the International Air Services Transit Agreement and filed a complaint with the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
India raised objections to the jurisdiction of the Council, but these were rejected, after which India appealed to the Court. During the written and oral proceedings, Pakistan contended that the Court was not competent to hear the appeal.
In its Judgment of August 18, 1972, the Court found that it was competent to hear the appeal of India. It decided that the ICAO Council was competent to deal with the Application filed by India and the Complaint by Pakistan, and accordingly dismissed the appeal by India.
Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer, was kidnapped by Pakistani agencies on March 3, 2016, from Iran where he was in connection with his business.
Pakistan, however, claimed that Jadhav was "arrested" in its restive province of Balochistan and labeled him a "spy". Pakistan informed India about it through a press release on March 25, 2016, 22 days after he was picked up.
India, as per the international diplomatic norms, immediately sought consular access to Jadhav on the same day and several times thereafter but it was not granted.
Jadhav, who hails from Powai area of Mumbai and is 49-year-old now, was put to trial in a military court, instead of a civil court, and a death sentence was pronounced against him on April 10, 2017 following an opaque trial.
After repeated appeals to Pakistan to release him failed, India moved the Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ) on May 8, 2017, accusing it of "egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations" in the matter.
Rubbishing Pakistan's claim that Jadhav was a "spy", India contended before the world court that it was not informed of his detention until long after his arrest and that Pakistan also failed to inform the accused of his rights.
It further told the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, that Pakistan, in violation of the Vienna Convention, denied India its right of consular access to Jadhav despite its repeated requests.
India told the ICJ that it learned about the death sentence against Jadhav from a press release.
In its petition to the ICJ, India sought immediate suspension of the death sentence awarded to Jadhav and his release, while asserting that it was a "brazen defiance" of the international law and provisions of the Vienna Convention which guarantee certain civil and political rights to a prisoner.
India sought direction to the Pakistan government to annul the decision of the military court, failing which the ICJ should declare the sentence "illegal", being violative of the international law and treaty rights.
It asked the world court to 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.
India said the violation by Pakistan of the Vienna Convention prevented it from "exercising its rights under the Convention and has deprived the Indian national from the protection accorded under the Convention".
It said Jadhav's execution would cause "irreparable prejudice" to the rights of India or Jadhav.
On May 18, 2017, the ICJ asked Pakistan to "take all measures at its disposal" to ensure that Jadhav is not executed, pending its final judgment in the case.
In its order indicating provisional measures, which was adopted unanimously, the ICJ also stated that the Pakistan government shall inform it of all measures taken in implementation of that order.
Later in December that year, Pakistan allowed Jadhav's mother and wife to meet him in a Pakistani jail, an event which India said "lacked any credibility".
India said the overall atmosphere of the meeting was "intimidating" as Jadhav's mother and wife were not allowed to speak to him in their mother tongue Marathi and that they were forced to change their clothes. The wife's shoes were not returned.
India has maintained that Jadhav was tortured in the Pakistani jail and an alleged "confession" was extracted from him through coercion.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing India during a public hearing in the case in the ICJ, said Pakistan had no clinching evidence against Jadhav.
The world court, while rejecting all objections raised by Pakistan, directed it to grant consular access to Jadhav "without further delay", while holding that it had "breached" the Vienna Convention by denying him this right.
Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer, was kidnapped by Pakistani agencies on March 3, 2016, from Iran where he was in connection with his business.
Pakistan had claimed that Jadhav was arrested from its restive province of Balochistan and labeled him as a spy. It notified India about it through a press release on March 25, 2016, 22 days after he was picked up.
Jadhav, who hails from Powai in Mumbai and is 49 years old now, was subjected to an opaque military trial, which sentenced him to death on April 10, 2017, even as Pakistan government kept rejecting India's repeated pleas for consular access.
The ICJ, which was moved by India on May 8, 2017, gave a detailed verdict on Wednesday, rejecting all the objections of Pakistan, including one unanimously on the admissibility of the case and also the claims by Islamabad that India had not provided the actual nationality of Jadhav.
In the judgement, the ICJ said it was satisfied that Jadhav was an Indian national and that the fact had been acknowledged by both Pakistan and India.
The court, in its ruling by 15-1, ordered "a continued stay of execution" on Jadhav, saying it "constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence" of the accused.
It said it "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" of the Vienna Convention on consular access.
Earlier on May 18 this year, the world court had ordered a stay on Jadhav's execution till the final verdict was delivered in the case.
The court, in its verdict on Wednesday, said it found that Pakistan deprived India of the "right to communicate with and have access" to Jadhav to "visit him in detention and to arrange for his legal representation, and thereby breached the obligations incumbent upon it under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The world court said that by not notifying the appropriate consular post of India in Pakistan without delay of Jadhav's detention, India was deprived of the right to render assistance provided for by the Vienna Convention to the individual concerned.
Pakistan "breached the obligations incumbent upon it" under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, it observed.
The court said Pakistan is "under an obligation" to inform Jadhav "without further delay of his rights and to provide Indian consular officers access to him" in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
India, while moving the world court on May 8, 2017, had rubbished Pakistan's claim that Jadhav was a "spy" and sought immediate suspension of the death sentence awarded to him and his release.
It had sought direction to the Pakistan government to annul the decision of the military court, failing which the ICJ should declare the sentence "illegal", being violative of the international law and treaty rights.
India had said Pakistan had resorted to a "brazen defiance" of the international law and provisions of the Vienna Convention which guarantee certain civil and political rights to a prisoner.
It contended that it was not informed of his detention until long and that Pakistan also failed to inform the accused of his rights.
It further told the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, that Pakistan, in violation of the Vienna Convention, denied India its right of consular access to Jadhav despite its repeated requests.
India told the ICJ that it learned about the death sentence against Jadhav from a press release.
On May 18, 2017, the ICJ asked Pakistan to "take all measures at its disposal" to ensure that Jadhav is not executed, pending its final judgment in the case.
In its order indicating provisional measures, which was adopted unanimously, the ICJ also stated that the Pakistan government shall inform it of all measures taken in implementation of that order.
Later in December that year, Pakistan allowed Jadhav's mother and wife to meet him in a Pakistani jail, an event which India said "lacked any credibility".
India said the overall atmosphere of the meeting was "intimidating" as Jadhav's mother and wife were not allowed to speak to him in their mother tongue Marathi and that they were forced to change their clothes. The wife's shoes were not returned.
India has maintained that Jadhav was tortured in the Pakistani jail and an alleged "confession" was extracted from him through coercion.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing India during a public hearing in the case in the ICJ, said Pakistan had no clinching evidence against Jadhav.
She also thanked Harish Salve for presenting India's case at the ICJ effectively and successfully and said that it was a great victory for India.
The ICJ on Wednesday asked Pakistan to review the death sentence awarded to Jadhav on charges of espionage and conspiracy against Pakistan. It also said that Pakistan breached the obligations under the Vienna Convention by not informing Jadhav of his rights.
In a huge victory for India, the ICJ on Wednesday ordered Pakistan not to execute Jadhav and asked it to reconsider the sentence awarded to him by a military court. The world court also directed Pakistan to grant consular access to Jadhav, while holding that it had "breached" the Vienna Convention in this regard by denying him this right.
"We welcome today's verdict in the ICJ. Truth and justice have prevailed. Congratulations to the ICJ for a verdict based on extensive study of facts. I am sure Kulbhushan Jadhav will get justice. Our government will always work for the safety and welfare of every Indian," Modi tweeted.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told the media here, "The ICJ has given orders to Pakistan to give consular access to Jadhav and it is a massive victory for India."
Former External Affairs Minister (EAM) Sushma Swaraj in a series of tweets welcomed the ICJ verdict, describing it as a "great victory for India".
"I wholeheartedly welcome the verdict of International Court of Justice in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav. It is a great victory for India," she tweeted.
In another tweet, Sushma Swaraj said, "I thank Prime Minister Narendra Modi for our initiative to take Jadhav's case before the International Court of Justice. I thank Harish Salve for presenting India's case before ICJ very effectively and successfully."
"I hope the verdict will provide the much-needed solace to the family members of Kulbhushan Jadhav," she added.
Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari also hailed the ICJ decision and described it as a big diplomatic victory for India.
"It's a big diplomatic win for India. I Congratulate our Prime Minister Narendra Modiji, former EAM Sushma Swarajji and senior advocate Harish Salve for their tireless efforts in the matter of Kulbhushan Jadhav."
Former Finance Minister and senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram and Congres General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi also welcomed the ICJ verdict.
"ICJ delivers 'justice' in the true sense of that word, upholding human rights, due procedure and the rule of law," Chidambaram said in a series of tweets.
"A 15:1 verdict is actually a unanimous verdict," the Congress leader added.
"Heartened by the Kulbhushan Jadhav verdict. At last justice has prevailed. All of India joins his family in their joy," Priyanka Gandhi tweeted.
Jadhav, an Indian naval officer, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court in April 2017 for alleged espionage. India had approached the ICJ to stay the execution.
"Commander Jadhav shall remain in Pakistan. He shall be treated in accordance with the laws of Pakistan. This is a victory for Pakistan," Qureshi tweeted.
The Pakistan Foreign Office in a statement said the fact that the ICJ did not ask Pakistan to release or acquit Jadhav meant that the UN court had "not accepted India's plea" for his release.
The Foreign Office also said that Pakistan was a responsible member of the international community.
"Having heard the judgment, Pakistan will now proceed as per law," the statement said.
It reiterated its accusations against Jadhav, that he "entered Pakistan without a visa on authentic Indian Passport with a fake name alias Hussain Mubarak Patel".
It reiterated its charges that Jadhav "is responsible for acts of sabotage, espionage and multiple terrorist incidents in which scores of innocent Pakistani citizens were killed resulting into umpteen women being widowed and numerous children becoming orphans".
Pakistan claimed that Jadhav "has confessed" to all these acts during his trial in a Pakistani court in front of a Judicial Magistrate. "This is a clear case of Indian state terrorism", the statement said.
In a huge victory for India, the ICJ on Wednesday ordered Pakistan not to execute Jadhav and asked it to reconsider the sentence awarded to him by a military court.
The world court also directed Pakistan to grant consular access to Jadhav, while holding that it had "breached" the Vienna Convention in this regard by denying him this right.
Jadhav, an Indian naval officer, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court in April 2017 for alleged espionage. India had approached the ICJ to stay the execution.
"We welcome and celebrate the decision of the ICJ in holding Pakistan to be in stark violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and staying the illegally ordered execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav! Satyamev Jayate!," Surjewala, who is also the national media in-charge of the party said in a series of tweets.
In another tweet, the Congress leader raised questions over the safety and well being of Jadhav and said, "Every Indian's concern for safety and well being of Kulbhushan Jadhav remains unaddressed as ICJ has authorised rogue Pakistan to review and reconsider Jadhav's case; and in a ‘manner' and ‘forum' of their choosing (Para 146)... leaving Jadhav vulnerable to another miscarriage of justice."
He also attached the para 146 of the ICJ referring to the court order which stated that the obligation to provide effective review and reconsideration be carried out in different ways and the choice of means is left to Pakistan.
The Congress leader's remarks came soon after the ICJ put on hold the death sentence given by a Pakistan military court to retired Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav in an alleged espionage case.
The ICJ also accused Pakistan of denying India consular access to Jadhav, saying it has not only violated the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, but has also ignored a 2008 bilateral agreement on consular access.
However, the ICJ in its verdict has decided not to acquit or release Jadhav.
In November 2008, India and Pakistan inked a bilateral agreement on consular access to the prisoners belonging to in both countries.
Former External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj had on May 15, 2017 revealed in a tweet that Salve was charging merely Re 1 to represent India in the Hague. According to reports, Salve's charges Rs 30 lakh a day otherwise.
The Pakistan government had in its budget document presented in the National Assembly the last year said that it paid Rs 20 crore to UK-based barrister Khawar Qureshi, who is representing the country in the Hague. A Cambridge University law graduate, Qureshi is the youngest lawyer fighting a case in the ICJ.
In a statement released post midnight, the Pakistan foreign office said it has informed Jadhav of his rights to consular access under the Vienna Convention.
However, the statement said that Pakistan will grant consular access to Jadhav "according to Pakistani laws".
"As a responsible state, Pakistan will grant consular access to Commander Kulbushan Jadhav according to Pakistani laws, for which modalities are being worked out," it said.
The move comes after the ICJ rapped Islamabad for continually denying Jadhav, incarcerated in a military jail in an unknown location in Pakistan, consular access in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
India on Thursday had asked Pakistan to "act immediately" on the ICJ verdict and grant consular access to Jadhav.
The ICJ has directed Pakistan for continued stay on the death sentence of Jadhav and to provide him consular access. Pakistan had refused to allow Indian officials to meet Jadhav ever since his "arrest" in March 2016 for alleged espionage. India had approached the ICJ after he was in April 2017 sentenced to death by a military court.
Islamabad's move comes ahead of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan's visit to Washington, where he is to meet President Donald Trump at the White House on July 22.
Pakistan also arrested Mumbai attacks mastermind and Jamat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed on Wednesday, in another move ahead of the Imran-Trump meeting.
While acceding to the ICJ ruling on Jadhav, Pakistan has maintained that it will "proceed as per law".
The Foreign Office said after the ICJ ruling: "Having heard the judgment, Pakistan will now proceed as per law", which was also echoed by Imran Khan in his tweet on Thursday.
"(I) appreciate ICJ's decision not to acquit, release & return Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav to India. He is guilty of crimes against the people of Pakistan. Pakistan shall proceed further as per law," the Pakistan Prime Minister tweeted.
Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar on Thursday said that India expects Pakistan to "act immediately" on the ICJ ruling and allow consular access to Jadhav.
"When the court says immediate action, it means 'immediate' and Pakistan should take immediate action. We are waiting for Pakistan to act," he had said.
Kumar said the ICJ in its verdict ruled that Pakistan "should take all measures to provide for effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentencing of Jadhav, and that this should include enacting appropriate legislation".
Foreign Office Spokesperson Mohammad Faisal's remarks came a day after Pakistan Army said that the government was considering various legal options for the review of Jadhav's case.
Jadhav, 49, a retired Indian Navy officer, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of "espionage and terrorism" after a closed trial in April 2017. India has maintained that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after retiring from the Navy.
In a major victory for India, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 17 ruled that Pakistan must review the death sentence given to Jadhav.
Faisal in his weekly press briefing in Islamabad said, "There will be no deal all decisions will be as per local laws."
He said that any step taken to implement the decision of the ICJ regarding Jadhav will be according to the Constitution.
During Jadhav's trial in the ICJ, India had argued that consular access was being denied to its national in violation of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Rejecting Pakistan's objection to admissibility of the Indian application in the case, the ICJ in its 42-page order held that "a continued stay of execution constitutes an indispensable condition for the effective review" of the sentence of Jadhav that had strained relations between the two neighbouring countries.
The bench, however, rejected some remedies sought by India, including annulment of the military court's decision convicting Jadhav, his release and safe passage to India.
After much dilly-dallying, Pakistan on September 2 granted India consular access to Jadhav under the direction of the ICJ.
Pakistan claims that its security forces arrested Jadhav from restive Balochistan province on March 3, 2016, after he reportedly entered from Iran.
Faisal also condemned the recent verdict by India's Supreme Court to award the site of the Babri Masjid to the Hindus.
He said the mosque was in possession of Muslims for over 450 years.
"The Babri mosque verdict has shredded so-called secularism in India," Faisal said.
He said Pakistan would do "everything" to highlight the "injustice" in the case.
He said about 12,000 Sikhs visited Kartarpur on the opening day of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor.
He also said that anybody from Pakistan can to Kartarpur but the media would need special permission for coverage.
The historic Kartarpur corridor connects Dera Baba Nanak shrine in India's Punjab with Darbar Sahib at Kartarpur in Pakistan.
During a weekly press briefing, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said that allowing a Queen's Counsel to Jadhav was out of the question.
"Allowing a Queen's Counsel for Jadhav is out of the question as only a lawyer with licence to practice in Pakistan can appear before the court," he said.
Queen's Counsel is a barrister appointed as Counsel to the UK's crown on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.
Jadhav's case is currently being heard in the Islamabad High Court (IHC), which gave India another chance to appoint and represent Jadhav during the last hearing.
However, India's latest demand has been rejected by Islamabad, stating that it has already provided consular access to Jadhav besides giving an open call to India to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the court.
"Pakistan had already given uninterrupted and unimpeded consular access to Jadhav and is ready to extend the same in future as well," said Chaudri.
Pakistan maintained that it is abiding by the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and blamed India for opting for delaying tactics in the case.
The IHC is hearing the review and reconsideration case of Jadhav following the verdict of the ICJ. India has called for the appointment of a Queen's Counsel or an Indian lawyer in the case of Jadhav. However, Pakistan has maintained that only practicing lawyers in Pakistan will be available.
Pakistan claims to have arrested Jadhav in Balochistan province in 2016. He was later handed a death sentence after going through trial in Pakistani military courts. The decision was later brushed aside by the ICJ after India took up the matter at the highest level.
Pakistan claims that Jadhav has confessed to his crimes and that he was involved in terror activities, espionage and spying with an aim to spread unrest and claim the lives of Pakistani people.
"India is consistently making efforts to evade the Jadhav case," the Pakistan foreign office spokesperson said.
After the ICJ verdict, Pakistan gave consular access to Jadhav. However, India has said that the consular meetings were interrupted and recorded with the presence of Pakistani security officials in the room.
(IANS)
More Related Stories:
India Hits Out At Pakistan For Blocking All Avenues In Kulbhushan Jadhav Case
‘India Is Committed To Safeguard Kulbhushan Jadhav’