India moved the ICJ on May 8, 2017 after a Pakistani military court sentenced Jadhav to death for alleged espionage.
The world court said the dispute was related to the "interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations". The ICJ said it has "jurisdiction under Article I of Optional Protocol to Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes".
The first objection of Pakistan to the admissibility of India's application was on "alleged abuse of process". The court observed that there was "no basis to conclude that India abused its procedural rights when it requested indication of provisional measures Articles II and III of Optional Protocol do not contain preconditions to the Court's exercise of its jurisdiction."
The second objection was on "alleged abuse of rights" and Pakistan's "contention that India failed to prove Jadhav's nationality". The ICJ said there was "no room for doubt that Mr. Jadhav is of Indian nationality".
The other arguments advanced by Pakistan "based on alleged breaches of India's international obligations under Security Council resolution 1373 (2001)" were also rejected.
The third objection of Pakistan was on "India's alleged unlawful conduct". The court said Pakistan's objection based on "clean hands" doctrine (a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct) was rejected.
It said there was "no explanation on how alleged unlawful conduct by India prevented Pakistan from providing consular access to Jadhav.
Pakistan's objection based on the principle of "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" (that no action can arise from an illegal act) cannot be upheld, the ICJ said.
The principle "ex injuria jus non oritur" (law or right does not arise from injustice) implies that "unjust acts cannot create law" is inapposite in the present case, the court said while throwing out Pakistan's third objection to admissibility of India's petition.
( With inputs from IANS )