Mr. M.D. Tahir, an Advocap of this Court has filed 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. Sharifuddin 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 respondents Nos.1 and 2 be ordered to divulge how the debacle was brought on the people of Pakistan and respondents Nos.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 reiterated 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 be 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. Sharifuddin 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 be paid to him by the Government of Pakistan, does not arise. Furthermore, neither Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada nor Mr. Aziz A. Munshi, the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan were involved in the filing of the case which was done by the previous Government.
5. A perusal of the judgment of International Court of Justice is sufficient in itself to refute the allegations made against the respondents by the petitioner. The petitioner is under total misconception 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 reasons, 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 Untied Nations as well as Simla Agreement of 1972 and Lahore Declaration of 1999. It may be mentioned that Mr. Aziz A. 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 Aircraft. 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 had reaffirmed: "The judicial settlement of international disputes, with a view to which the Court has been established is simply an alternative to the direct and friendly settlement of such disputes between the Parties; .... Consequently it is for the Court to facilitate, so far as is compatible with its Statute, such direct and friendly settlement" (case concerning the Free Zones of Upper Save and the District of Gex, Order 19th August, 1929, P.C.I.J, Series A. No,22, p.13, see also Frontier Dispute (Burkina 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 as restated more particularly in the Simla Accord of 2nd July, 1972, which provides that "the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them." Moreover, the Lahore Declaration of 2nd 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 aerial incident of 10th 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 and the judgment of Judge Al-Khasawneh is a call by the Court which is wholly within its powers as a Principal Judicial Organs 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 has 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. Sharifuddin Pirzada, it has been observed that:- "Without prejudice to the aforesaid, I am in full agreement with the view 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 Serial 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 Ail Jinnah and Mallittma 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. Sharifuddin 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 be 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 Kahsmir 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 be drawn is that this petition has not been filed in good faith but to malign the respondents to the detriment of national interest. Mr. Sharifuddin 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. 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.