MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.- Mr. M.D. Tahir, an Advocate of this Court has tiled this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in which he has impleaded Federation of Pakistan, Secretary Law and Justice Division. Islamabad, Mr. Aziz A. Munshi, Attorney- General for Pakistan, Advisor to the Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Mr. Khalid Anwar, former Law Minister for Pakistan and Mr. Sharif-ud-Dir. Pirzada, as respondents. It is alleged in this petition that respondent No. 1, Federation of Pakistan, had filed a case against India for damages on account of downing of a Pakistan Navy Plane Atlantique in August last year but due to the failure of the respondents, the said case was dismissed by the International Court of Justice. It has been prayed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be ordered to divulge how the debacle was brought on the people of Pakistan and respondents No. 3 to 6 be ordered to repay what money they have received to the State to pursue this matter abroad. It is also prayed that the respondent-State be directed to take legal proceedings against the persons responsible for giving wrong advice to defame the country in the eyes of world.
2. I have heard Mr. M.D. Tahir, Advocate, who has re-iterated the contents of the petition. On the asking of the Court, Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan had produced the judgment of the International Court of Justice which has been perused by me.
3. At the very outset, it is to he stated with regret that this petition does not appear to have been filed with any degree of seriousness inasmuch as it is quite obvious from the contents of this petition as also what was urged at the Bar by the petitioner that he had not even cared to read the judgment of the International Court of Justice which is lamentable.
4. So far as Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada is concerned, he is an eminent jurist of the country and is known for his knowledge of law and erudition. He acted as a Judge of the International Court of Justice in the case. He is the second Pakistani to adorn that Bench after Sir Zafar Ullah Khan. The question of any fee etc. To he paid to him by the Government of Pakistan, does not arise.
Furthermore, neither Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada nor Mr. Aziz A. Munshi, the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan were involved in the tiling of the case which was done by the previous Government.
5. A perusal of the judgment of the International Court of Justice is sufficient in itself to refute the allegations made against the respondents by the petitioner. The petitioner is under total mis- conception that the Atlantique case had been lost by Pakistan although what has happened in fact is that the International Court of Justice due to technical reason has not gone into the merits of the case but has directed both, India and Pakistan to settle their disputes peacefully and in good faith in accordance with the obligations undertaken by them under the Charter of United Nations as well as Simla Agreement of 1972 and Lahore Declaration of 1999. It may he mentioned that Mr. Aziz Munshi, learned Attorney-General for Pakistan had raised the question of Kashmir dispute before the International Court of Justice and, therefore, the said Court in its unanimous decision of 16 Judges issued and recorded therein, called upon the two countries which amounts to a direction to settle their disputes meaning thereby, all disputes including the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir as well as atlantique Air-craft. The use of the word "disputes" in para 55 of the judgment of the Full Court is more significant for Pakistan and this outcome is a clear legal and moral victory for Pakistan in the eyes of International Court of Justice. To say otherwise would be to shut eyes to realities. Paragraphs 51 to 55 of the judgment agreed to, by the Full Court, are relevant and may be reproduced with advantage:- "(51) Finally, the Court would recall that "(t) here is a fundamental distinction between the acceptance by a State of the Court's jurisdiction and the compatibility of particular acts with international law. Whether or not States accept the jurisdiction of the Court, they remain in all cases responsible for acts attributable to them that violate the rights of other States." (Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), jurisdiction of the Court, judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, P. 456, paras 55-56)
(52) As the Permanent Court of International Justice had already observed in 1929, and as the present Court has reaffirmed:- "the judicial settlement of international disputes, with a view to which the Court has been established is simply an alternative to the direct aid friendly settlement of such disputes between the parties; consequently it is tbr the Court to facilitate, so far as is compatible with its Statute, such direct and friendly settlement" (case concerning the Free Zones of Upper Savey and the District of Gex, Order of 19 August 1929, P.C.L.J., Series A. No. 22, p. 13, see also Frontier Dispute (Bur dna Faso v.
Republic of Mali), I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 577, para 46, and passage through the Great Belt (Finland v.
Denmark) I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 20).
(53) The Court's lack of jurisdiction does not relieve States of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means. The choice of those means admittedly rests with the parties under Article 33 of the United Nations charter. They are nonetheless under an obligation to seek such a , settlement, and to do so in good faith in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Charter.
(54) As regards India and Pakistan, that obligation was restated more particularly in the Simla Accord of 2 July, 1972, which provides that "the two countries are resolved to settle the differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them". Moreover, the Lahore Declaration of 21 February 1999 reiterated "the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement."
(55) Accordingly, the Court reminds the parties of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means, and in particular the dispute arising out of the acrial incident of 10 August, 1999, in conformity with the obligations, which they have undertaken (cf. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v.
Canada), jurisdiction of the Court, judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 456, para 56)."
6. These paragraphs and the word "reminds" used by the Court in paras 2 and 3 of the judgment of Judge Al-khasawneh is a call by the Court which is wholly within its powers as a Principal Organ of the United Nations. Judge A.G. Koroma has held that the Court is integral part of the United Nations system and it is entitled to contribute to the peaceful settlement of the disputes. The learned Judge had further recorded "Guided by the Charter and its jurisprudence, the Court has judiciously reminded the parties of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means. "Similarly, in the dissenting judgment of Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, it has been observed that:'- "Without prejudice to the aforesaid, I am in full agreement with the views of the Court expressed in paragraphs 51 to 55 of the judgment.
I would like to emphasize that the parties are under an obligation to settle in good faith their disputes, including the dispute regarding the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in particular the dispute arising out of the aerial incident of 10th August, 1999.
Nelson Mandela, the veteran leader, has publicly acknowledged that he got immense inspiration from his heroes, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad A.I Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi. Both believed in the rule of law and justice. In the new Millennium, let India and Pakistan keep in view the ideals of the two great leaders and take prompt and effective measures to secure peace, security and justice in South Asia."
7. A reading of the aforesaid paras of the judgment delivered by the learned Judges of the International Court of Justice is sufficient to show the efforts put in by the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, Mr. Aziz A. Munshi in arguing the matter and by Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada as Judge ad hoc in formulating his dissenting judgment. It may thus be recorded that the International Court of Justice unanimously directed that all disputes between India and Pakistan should he settled in good faith in accordance with the obligations undertaken by both, India and Pakistan in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the agreements between the parties in the form of Simla Agreement of 1972 and Lahore Declaration 1999. In the majority judgment agreed to by the two other Judges, the word "disputes" has been used in plural which shows that the Court has acknowledged that there are more disputes than one pending between the two countries which must be settled through peaceful means. Had the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir not been raised by the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan in arguments, the word "disputes" in plural would not have been used by the International Court of Justice in para 55 of the concluding para of the judgment.
8. From the above, the only inference which can he drawn is that this petition has not been tiled in good faith but to malign the respondents to the detriment of national interest. Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada and Mr. Aziz A. Munshi, learned Attorney-General for Pakistan have acquitted themselves honourably during the course of proceedings at Hague. Obtaining a direction from International Court of Justice to India and Pakistan to settle their disputes through negotiations is no mean achievement.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.