92
NEW DELHI: There is a bit of history to the hyped fight between two legal experts — Harish Salve for India and Khawar Qureshi for Pakistan — in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is seized with the Kulbhushan Jadhav case.
At the moment Salve seems to have the upper hand in the case, with the ICJ staying Jadhav’s possible execution until a final judgement on the matter.
More than 15 years ago, there was a curious turn of events when India was forced to face arbitration at an international tribunal in the US initiated by Enron over the closure of the Dabhol power project. Millions of dollars were at stake for India. Salve, who had quit as solicitor general of India in November 2002, was retained as India’s counsel at the arbitration tribunal.
In 2004, the UPA government came to power as also a new team of law officers headed by attorney general Milon Banerjee. To manage the high-stakes arbitration over Dabhol against Enron, the government chose the Fox and Mandal law firm.
Government sources said Salve was sounded out whether he would continue as India’s counsel in the arbitration proceedings. Salve confirmed and informed the new government that he would continue to charge a concessional fee of Rs100,000 for a day’s hearing in the US-based tribunal.
Read more: ICJ stays Jadhav's execution, says it has jurisdiction in case brought by India
However, there was a sudden change of heart and the Fox and Mandal firm was asked to hire Khawar Qureshi. India ultimately lost on both counts, the case to Enron and a lot of money that was paid to Qureshi as fees.
Salve confirmed to the Times of India that he had agreed to fight the case for India in the tribunal despite change of government. “It was a professional decision to defend India in the tribunal. But, I learnt from media reports later that Qureshi was hired and I could become his deputy.... So I decided to keep away, wishing India the best.” Salve refused to divulge any more details of how he was replaced by Qureshi in 2004.
Explore: Experts wonder why ICJ jurisdiction was recognised in March
An article from 2004 in The Lawyer, states that Serle Court chambers’ lawyer Qureshi had been appointed as counsel for the government of India. A host of UK firms had been invited to take India’s case.
A spokesperson for the previous law firm had said: “Following the appointment of the new attorney general, the entire legal team... was replaced.”
By arrangement with the Times of India
Published in Dawn, May 22nd, 2017
Read more
On DawnNews
Comments (92) Closed
May 22, 2017 08:03am
No wonder india lost.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:10am
Looks like Pakistan government didn't do the homework even in choosing the attorney
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:12am
We are ashamed that our government availed the services of this incompetent Pakistani lawyer.This lawyer has a history of losing cases at ICJ.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:17am
Did you guys know that British telecom giant Vodafone hired harish salve to defend its case when Indian government imposed a tax worth 10,000 crore on Vodafone? He temporarily shifted his office to London to focus on the very case and ultimately emerged victorious when the final verdict of the supreme court was out. Now just imagine how much money he would have charged to save Vodafone's 10,000 crore. Now that's harish salve for you
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:34am
Amazing information!
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:40am
India hired Pakistani Lawyer. No wonder so many Pakistanis like Congress Party of India.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:40am
The Congress govt is very adept at milking our own govt treasuries. I am pretty sure that they would have got a lot of commission by way of transfer of the case and losing the case. Probably checking the Enron accounts, there might be something about payment to congress.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:44am
Khawar Qureshi has a consistent track record of losing at ICJ, irrespective of whether he is representing India or Pakistan
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:50am
This is the reason we don't trust Congress in India... When you can shun our own lawyers for a lawyer who is no more competent than ours....then questions must be raised!! It's ohk if he was from Pakistan....but atleast he should have won the case for his team...
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:58am
Courtesy Congress led govt....thats the difference b/w BJP and Congress
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:20am
What a joke? How can be compete with this representative who has this kind of track record.
Where are our best elite panel of lawyers, who are best in class and has 27 plus of expertise?
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:22am
Those who selected this lawyer must be held accountable and made to face the music.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:30am
This is the difference between BJP govt. Led by Modiji and the incompetent Congress of Sonia/Rahul Gandhi
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:39am
Typical example of Anti Indian Cangressi Govt!
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:41am
@SG I Think he has long history of winning cases. Even he won a case for India some other time. He is very talented lawyer. Not even best lawyer will win all the cases.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:51am
there is no difference between Muslim League & Corrupt Communal Congress, That is why we trashed congress and its policies in bin.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:57am
Qureshi Sahab its better you represent your own country and Charge them 500,000 pounds
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:57am
Congress defeat is for its wrong decisions. Why Khawar was chosen by Congress?
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:58am
Can you please let us know if any case Khawar Quershi has won?
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:01am
Mr.Qureshi is a British National and expert of ICJ yes he lost the case when he represented India and also he was on the reciving end from Indian lawyer salve, but he still has an impressive record in International courts.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:05am
I do not understand the reason for this article.
Could it be to humiliate Qureshi in two losses or is he incompetent.
Knowing something about law one does the
best with facts presented to him and the
prevailing leading case law
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:07am
This is exact reason how congress has siphoned money and done corruption !
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:09am
Sonia is yesterday and rahul never has present and future .we all youngsters are with narendra d.modi . jai hind !
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:15am
Neither India nor Pakistan, the real winner here is Qureshi who was smiling all the way to the bank.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:29am
he must be channeling the money back to political leaders, hence picked inspite of failures even by opposite parties.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:47am
@SAMEER paksitan army needs to be asked its they who were supposed to provide the evidence
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:48am
No wonder the people of India do not trust the Congress now.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:50am
Pakistan's case is weak, why blaming lawyer. Remeber lawyers and doctors are not magicians.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 10:59am
There is some thing running common between UPA government and Sharif government. Anyone guess?
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:06am
He has close connections with prominent politicians and industrialist in India.
He is a competent Attorney.Let us not go by verdict...he will place before the Court what is given to him by his clients...he cannot create anything out of thin air like a magician.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:07am
@pranjali True Pranjali..i would say that yesterday's Sonia Gandhi had made the mockery of PM office which Narendra Modi has restored
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:10am
So Congress removed India's top lawyer Harish salve, who charged less and assured India's win and replaced him with arch-enemy country Pakistani lawyer and expected him to win case for enemy India? Epic. Doubt Congress was ever pro India in its entire history. Government of India should initiate enquiry on congress's decision that cost India millions of dollars and check if kickbacks were exchanged between American company and India.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:11am
@SAMEER: In a fixed match win & lose is decided before the game. Pakistan agreeing to ratify in March, Jindal coming secretly to meet Nawaz Sharif and then suddenly India deciding to go to ICJ in May points towards one direction only.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:11am
@Gjoshi --sir,it is congress Govt.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:13am
Your story about Barrister Qureshi reveals lot of interesting information.
But in my view Pakistan did not have any plausible defence to India's claim. There existed no reasonable chances of success to defend the claim. So blaming the Barrister is just giving vent to frustration of losing day in the court.
This is my provisional view (as a legal professional qualified from a Western Democracy) that as a lawyer he should have ethically refused to act for Pakistan because he already acted for India. Ethically he should not have acted against India in ICJ.
I assume and expect that he possibly should have made it clear to the person instructing him that there are no reasonable chances of success.
At FCGM there has been miscarriage of justice on account of infringing Mr Jhadav's rights. So it is high time to pronounce FCGM void ab initio and acquit Mr Jhadav honourably.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:16am
Well done Congress! That is what you were best at.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:19am
A lawyer loosing doesn't necessarily mean he is bad. Anyway, even the best lawyers loose sometime. Desi minds are too simple to understand these things
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:23am
In my opinion instead of debating who has chosen what lawayers in the past or present both nations should debated on how to prove themselves in ICJ i.e for Pakistan Kulbhushan is a spy and for he is not.
And please don't hang him irrespective of he is guilty or not as no one has the right to take life as no one can give life.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:23am
Selection of Khawar Qureshi was probably not inappropriate,the weakness lies with the narrative,brief and instructions given to the counsel by Nawaz Sharif government.The counsel argued in the ICJ on what he was given and told to do.He is a competent international law lawyer,that is why he was hired by the then Indian government in 2007-08 in the first place.Weakness of Nawaz government should not be attributed to the lawyer.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:27am
@Ashkush. FYI Qureshi is British not Pakistani.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:47am
To all those Indians who are cursing Congress, Mr Qureshi is an Englishman and has pledged allegiance to the Queen of England. He is as English as Aamir Khan (Boxer), Moin Ali ( Cricketer), Suleman Mirza ( Dancer/Rapper), Zain Malick (Singer) and many more who are proud English, but of Pakistani origin. Furthermore, Fox and Mandal was hired, not Mr Qureshi to fight the case. For arguments sake, if Mr Qureshi is asked to represent Union Carbide (reference Bhopal Industrial gas leak of 1984), he will not be able to win the case. So some times its also how your case looks like. Now coming to this subject of Mr Yadav at hand, I dont think Mr Qureshi has lost yet. This was a preliminary hearing where ICJ said don't hang Yadav as of yet. In the meanwhile, both lawyers will argue the jurisdiction in coming hearings.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 11:51am
@Indian Vodaphone is UK company, UK is not our arch enemy. Harish salve fought as private lawyer for Vodaphone. Well within his rights. Where as in Dhabol case Congress government removed Harish as government's lawyer and replaced him with Pakistani lawyer. America then won the case. Big difference. Congress has to come clean on its action.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:06pm
@Indian Vodafone tax case efforts were led by Jaitley. He saved them about $4 Bn in taxes. He'd have kept about 5% of that amount as fees.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:08pm
ICJ has no value
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:24pm
Qureshi is very good at charging handsome fees and losing the case. I could do that in quarter of the fees.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:25pm
The way he has spoken at ICJ, he was sounding very fluent. The first round of discussion was to discuss whether the main case has to be discussed at ICJ and in which format. India's line argument was only limited to that, and Salve did not elaborate whether Jadhav was spy or not, and rights henceforth. Mr Qureshi on the other hand started to discuss the main case itself from Pakistani angle, and was looking for a scenario to avoid any further discussion at ICJ. When it comes to main case discussion in future, many of his viewpoints will then start to seem relevant.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:29pm
@KaiF I don't know what your equivalent is of the NRI (Non residential Indian) is but Lawyer Qureshi is that one.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:31pm
No wonder Pakistanis want India to choose Congress over BJP.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:38pm
@Bakwaas "Neither India nor Pakistan, the real winner here is Qureshi who was smiling all the way to the bank."
Well India certainly is not a loser. If anyone is laughing to the bank it's at Pakistan's expense which indeed is a gain or not but certainly no loss to India.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 12:41pm
This attorney must be paying good commission.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 01:07pm
From reading the old story in the new era, it appears that both the indian and pakistani govts proved to be wrong in selecting the same lawyer.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 01:31pm
ORICLEABOUT 3 HOURS AGO
"I do not understand the reason for this article. Could it be to humiliate Qureshi in two losses or is he incompetent. Knowing something about law one does the best with facts presented to him and the prevailing leading case law"
I agree with you totally. While expertise and experience of a Lawyer is paramount, facts, figures and evidence play a bigger role. Quereshi had to fight the case without facts and evidence, hence lost.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 01:31pm
That is exactly why the Congress Party of India is so popular in Pakistan.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 01:47pm
@KaiF : British of Pakistani descent
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 01:49pm
Khawar Qureshi is an highly accomplished and professional lawyer. He has fought a ton of high profile cases successfully. It is unfair to blame him for getting India's application to ICJ dismissed.
India went for the lowest hanging fruit "a stay on execution" since this simply involved convincing the panel of judges that Pakistan has "potentially" violated the Vienna Convention. This step of the process was bound to go India's way since creating sufficient doubt in the minds of the judges wasn't too hard.
If Pakistan's team doesn't come up with a coherent rebuttal to India's arguments, the next round will have a similar outcome. India is making a bold move internationalising this issue. This suggests to me that India strongly believes there is no admissible evidence that may incriminate the nation in future hearings. Only a banana republic with nothing to lose would internationalize an issue, thereby causing a serious loss of face in UN should they lose.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 02:02pm
@Muneer 'Weakness of Nawaz government should not be attributed to the lawyer.'
if that were the case, why is Pakistani government talking about changing the legal team?
You can't give him a certificate of competence,and yet change him, just like you can't have the cake and eat it as well.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 02:05pm
@Hari har 'I assume and expect that he possibly should have made it clear to the person instructing him that there are no reasonable chances of success.'
people are suspecting that he was appointed with the mandate of losing it- and that is what he was paid for !
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 02:10pm
@RASHID BHAT : don't you feel shame after first round of losing the case
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 02:21pm
The claim of compensation was too high. The case was resolved out of court. The whole Enron deal was mired up in controversies and so does this OOC settlement of undisclosed amount. It happed as this was the first project that was awarded sovereign guarantee. Everything was planned from beginning. So please don't see it as failure. It was a deal where our politicians were hand in glove with Enron. hence they went for this lawyer.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 02:22pm
@SAMEER
Maybe Pakistan Govt don't want to do homework
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 02:35pm
India and Pakistan From creation to the presents unfortunately lawyers prevails in each aspect..
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 02:51pm
@BritiSh Muslim "don't you feel shame after first round of losing the case"
Shame is an emotion that a human feels for personal inadequacies or reckless acts. The issue under discussion is not a matter of shame or pride but justice. My parents taught me that even if a thousand villains have to be let free just to ensure an innocent man is not wronged, do it without thinking twice. India made a sufficiently decent case and they were granted a stay on the execution. Pakistan cooperated and agreed to wait until the case is closed. But this is only the beginning. As long as justice is served and truth wins, I will sleep well irrespective of which nation wins.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 03:25pm
@BritiSh Muslim "don't you feel shame after first round of losing the case"
I agree round 1 is to India. I wont call it shame, however it was highly disapointing. But we have to take this setback on our chin, stand up and face India. We have not submitted to Indian dominance in last 70 years, and shall not do so in the future.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 03:33pm
This is not about representing a country, or your own country, it is about money and nothing else.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 03:41pm
@oricle I agree
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 03:45pm
I don't think Mr Khawar is incompetent but the case against Kulbhushan is weak
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 03:51pm
Why did we hire a twice lost lawyer for such an important case ?
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 03:54pm
This was a work in haste.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 04:20pm
Lawyers are professionals who will work on cases for which the potential clients approach them and any professional lawyer will accept the case so long as there is no conflict of interest. Having represented India for Enron case was in no way a conflict of interest in accepting case of Jadhav on behalf of Pakistan. It is totally irrelevant whether the lawyer is of what origin or what religion or country or for that matter whether he lost previous case(s). Lawyers build their reputation on the type of advise and how well the case is fought and not on win or loss of the case because if that was the case; no lawyer would have represented accused criminals.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 04:21pm
So proud of the Congress Govt. They upheld secularism in India by selecting Qureshi, no matter the results. The idea of India is more important than India itself.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 05:04pm
@Arun I'm smelling sarcasm here and I hope it is and you're not serious.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 05:19pm
Dont blame the lawyer
He has also represented more than 60 other countries
It was our Government's role on diplomatic level to explain what Kulboshan did...
Till date they can not even say out his name in public
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 05:53pm
Losers cost less. We have no choice but to choose him.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 06:00pm
@Gjoshi .No.As a matter of fact the verdict of case rests on facts,truth,findings,investigations,lawyers are all equally good.They endeavor their best. The judgement is not lawyers business. Decisions of Courts are prerogatives of judges not the lawyers. Be it Salve or Khawar Qureishi, both are talented and high caliber lawyers. Please face the facts in practical life, do not see facts through Bollywood movies,they are fictional,and reality is different from fictions.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 06:42pm
@Ashkush Basically congress didn't take any chance to give the responsibility to an Indian attorney, if he win then? Who will take chance. Rather confirm the loss by giving it to a pakistani attorney. The result of congress is clear now.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 06:51pm
@(3H) really!!!!!
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:20pm
@PAMNANI - INDIA -Why do you need to know? You seem to be a Modi's supporter!. Mind you own business.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 08:21pm
@Nadir KHAN I fully agree with you.
When the same lawyer represented India against a US multinational company Enron in 2004 & India lost the case, nobody blamed the lawyer because India's case was weak and inspite of best efforts of this lawyer, they lost it. The Jadhav case scenario looks similar.
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:05pm
@Gjoshi it was deliberately
Recommend
0
May 22, 2017 09:45pm
@Desidimag No wonder ?? You don't know the facts of the case. Its a court. The lawyers even argue for the client who has murdered someone and they know is sure to lose the case. Its WORK.
Recommend
0
May 23, 2017 05:56am
Thank you for the point you raised. Professionals should be trusted and not to be blamed for everything.
Recommend
0
May 23, 2017 09:18am
@J. Gamble Chill, no personal fight on this forum. A healthy discussion/comment is always welcomed and preserves its sanctity.
Recommend
0
May 23, 2017 10:53am
Now its Modi's India. You can feel the deference. We were a banana republic at time of UPA, thing are changed now....
Recommend
0
May 23, 2017 02:43pm
revisiting history... this is how u mitigate the pain and disparage
Recommend
0
May 23, 2017 02:56pm
@KaiF He is from Pakistani origin
Recommend
0
May 23, 2017 05:53pm
@Abdulla Hussain
Speak candidly....if what you are suggesting is correct, then your entire political system is corrupt. Is that what you are saying ? Dont mince words. Get to the point.
Recommend
0
May 24, 2017 05:53am
Mr Khawar Quereshi is a competent lawyer and a renowned Queen's Counsel. Emotional and immature people of India and Pakistan cannot look beyond win and loss, assassinating his character shows the shallowness and naivety of people on both sides of the border.
Recommend
0
May 24, 2017 06:06am
@Indian amazing information
Recommend
0
May 24, 2017 09:39am
I tell you, this Sonia and co ruined India for a decade like no other government in its 7 decade history.
Recommend
0
May 24, 2017 01:21pm
@AMIT JAIN If he is competent then why is the team being changed?
Recommend
0
May 24, 2017 07:22pm
The case was not conducted in a professional manner. The question.of jurisdiction should have not been raised at the preliminary stage especially when Pakistan decided to defend its stance. International.Court of Justice proceedings are conducted subject to consent of the parties are ready to bring their case for adjudication. The decisions of ICJ are not legally binding and these decisions are not enforceable being impotent.
The best strategy was that Pakistan must have abstained from proceedings instead of attending and defending.
Recommend
0
May 25, 2017 08:42am
Legal ethics in our country says that the lawyer who has represented you will and should not fight or oppose you in future in any case. Going by this logic Mr. Qureshi has acted against ethics by opposing India in this case.
Recommend
0
