LI Network
11th November 2026
India has flatly rejected a US civil lawsuit by Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun as “fabricated and malicious,” while a New York court has cleared new routes to serve process on NSA Ajit Doval and former R&AW chief Samant Goel. The developments highlight procedural friction over how foreign courts notify Indian officials and the practical limits of cross-border civil claims against a sovereign state.
What happened
In September 2024, Pannun (legal counsel for the India-banned Sikhs for Justice and designated a terrorist by Indian authorities) filed a civil damages suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. He alleged a conspiracy to assassinate him in New York in 2023 and named the Government of India, NSA Ajit Doval, former R&AW chief Samant Goel, alleged former R&AW officer Vikash Yadav, Indian national Nikhil Gupta, and others.
The case is linked to, but separate from, a US criminal investigation. Gupta (arrested in the Czech Republic in 2023 and extradited) pleaded guilty in February 2026 to murder-for-hire, conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. His sentencing is set for 20 November 2026; US prosecutors have sought time for Pannun to address the court as a victim-witness. Yadav has faced related charges in India. US and Canadian investigations into the related Hardeep Singh Nijjar killing have, according to some reporting, moved away from earlier suggestions of involvement by the most senior officials.
On the procedural side:
- The US State Department, acting under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) §1608(a)(4), transmitted a summons, complaint and notice of suit concerning the Government of India to the Indian Embassy in Washington via a diplomatic note signed on 30 September 2026 and delivered on 9 October 2026. The Department stated it had “no discretion” in carrying out the court request and took no position on the merits or validity of service.
- Separately, on 9 November 2026, US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla allowed Pannun to pursue service on Doval and Goel (in their individual capacities) by routing documents through district courts in Delhi (such as Patiala House, Dwarka or Tis Hazari). The order relies on Article 19 of the Hague Service Convention and Section 29(c) of India’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which permits foreign civil summons to be sent to Indian courts and served as if issued locally. Pannun must prepare a service packet by 30 November. Earlier attempts to serve Doval personally during a February 2025 US visit failed.
Why it happened
The civil suit is a private damages action that piggybacks on the criminal allegations. Pannun has sought to keep the matter alive after the criminal case focused more narrowly on Gupta and Yadav. Service is a necessary first step for the US court to assert personal jurisdiction; without proper service, the case cannot proceed against those defendants. The State Department’s diplomatic transmission is a statutory obligation under FSIA once other hierarchical methods of service on a foreign state are exhausted. The court order on the individuals reflects the plaintiff’s attempt to use available international and Indian procedural pathways after other methods stalled.
Indian government reaction
MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated on 10–11 November 2026 that India “reject[s] the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials” and “the frivolous lawsuits.” He emphasised that “a request for serving of judicial documents in India can only be routed through India’s designated central authority that is the Ministry of Law and Justice.” Sources have indicated New Delhi has raised the matter with US authorities, noting the lack of legal merit and, in some accounts, Doval’s functional or diplomatic immunity. India has previously described the broader allegations as unwarranted and formed a committee to examine US concerns from the criminal probe.
Can a foreign court “summon” an Indian, and under what circumstances?
A foreign court does not issue a criminal summons that Indian police must execute. In civil and commercial matters between Hague Service Convention parties (both India and the US are parties; India acceded in 2006 and the Convention entered into force for India in 2007), process can be served through designated channels so that the foreign court can claim personal jurisdiction.
Under the US FSIA, service on a foreign state follows a strict hierarchy: special arrangement, applicable treaty, mail by the clerk to the foreign ministry, then diplomatic channels. Service on individuals is generally governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention. Article 19 of the Hague Convention preserves a state’s domestic law methods for transmitting foreign documents. Judge Failla accepted that India’s CPC §29(c) (supported by a 2009 Central Government notification applying it to Hague parties) provides such a method for service via Indian courts.
This is notification of a lawsuit, not an order compelling appearance or arrest. Sovereign and official immunity (under FSIA in the US and customary international law) remains a major defence. Functional immunity often protects officials for acts performed in an official capacity. Even if service is completed, India is unlikely to appear or submit to the court’s jurisdiction; default judgments are possible but face severe enforcement obstacles.
What Indian law says
India’s designated Central Authority under the Hague Convention is the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs. India has made reservations, including opposition to Article 10 methods (postal channels, direct service by judicial officers or interested parties). Documents must generally be in English or accompanied by translation. The Central Authority forwards valid requests to appropriate Indian courts or authorities for service under the CPC.
Section 29 of the CPC provides for service of foreign summons in India when the Central Government has notified the foreign court’s jurisdiction (done for Hague parties). Section 86 of the CPC requires Central Government consent to sue a foreign state in Indian courts, reflecting sovereign immunity, with limited exceptions. Indian courts respect comity but prioritise sovereignty; they can refuse requests that infringe security or public policy. Any attempt to enforce a US judgment in India would require recognition under the CPC and would almost certainly be resisted on sovereignty, public policy and lack of jurisdiction grounds.
Other useful insights
- Service ≠ liability or enforcement. Completing service is only the beginning. Defendants can challenge jurisdiction, raise immunity defences, or simply not appear. A US judgment against the Indian state or senior officials would be extremely difficult to enforce in India and would not create personal liability or travel restrictions by itself.
- FSIA is US domestic law. It governs when US courts may hear cases against foreign states. It does not create obligations under Indian or international law for India to accept jurisdiction. The State Department’s role is ministerial.
- Practical reality. Previous attempts at personal service during official visits failed due to security. Routing through Indian courts still requires Indian judicial and executive cooperation. India has made clear it will only process requests through the Law Ministry and rejects the substance of the claims.
- Broader context. Such cases are often used by plaintiffs to generate publicity and pressure. India has consistently designated Pannun a terrorist and SFJ an unlawful organisation, citing calls for violence and secession. The criminal case against Gupta continues independently.
- Reciprocity and sovereignty. Indian courts and the government have historically been cautious about foreign judicial requests that touch sovereign functions or senior officials. Recent Supreme Court observations in other contexts have underscored that sovereignty and reciprocity matter.
In short, the US court has taken procedural steps available under its rules and the Hague framework to try to notify the defendants. India has rejected both the allegations and any service route that bypasses its designated Central Authority. The case remains a civil claim whose practical impact on Indian officials or the government is likely to stay limited by immunity, non-appearance and the difficulty of enforcement.