India Rejects Gurpatwant Singh Pannun’s US Lawsuit, Calls Allegations Against Ajit Doval and Former R&AW Chief ‘Fabricated and Malicious’
The Indian government has strongly rejected a civil lawsuit filed by Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in a US court against National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, former Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) chief Samant Goel and other Indian officials. New Delhi has described the allegations as “fabricated and malicious” and dismissed the legal proceedings as frivolous.
The response came after the United States confirmed that court-issued summonses in connection with the lawsuit had been transmitted to the Indian side through diplomatic channels. The development has brought renewed attention to the diplomatic and legal dispute surrounding allegations of an alleged assassination conspiracy targeting Pannun in the United States.
Addressing the issue at a regular media briefing on November 10, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal firmly rejected the allegations against India’s senior officials. He also clarified that requests for serving judicial documents in India must be routed through the country’s designated central authority, the Ministry of Law and Justice.
The US State Department confirmed that the summonses and accompanying documents were delivered to the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC, on October 9, 2026. The diplomatic note associated with the transmission was signed on September 30.
The American diplomatic communication referred to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which governs the circumstances under which foreign governments and certain state-linked entities or officials may face legal proceedings in US courts. However, Washington clarified that transmitting the documents did not constitute an endorsement of Pannun’s allegations or a determination of the case’s legal merits.
The lawsuit concerns an alleged conspiracy to assassinate Pannun in New York in 2023. Pannun, who serves as legal counsel for the organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), has accused several Indian officials, including Doval and Goel, of involvement in the alleged conspiracy. He is seeking damages through the civil proceedings.
The case gained renewed attention following a November 9 order by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla permitted Pannun to pursue an alternative procedure for serving summonses on Doval and Goel through designated courts in Delhi under provisions connected with the Hague Convention.
The court has directed Pannun to submit the proposed documents and procedural details by November 30. The court will examine the material before deciding on the next steps for transmitting the summonses through the proposed Indian judicial route. The order does not establish the allegations as facts or determine the liability of the officials named in the lawsuit.
The dispute is connected to a separate US criminal investigation initiated in November 2023. American federal prosecutors accused Indian national Nikhil Gupta of working with an individual identified as an Indian government employee in an alleged murder-for-hire conspiracy targeting Pannun in New York. The alleged plot was foiled before it could be carried out.
Gupta pleaded guilty in February 2026 to charges connected with the alleged assassination conspiracy. The criminal proceedings and Pannun’s civil lawsuit remain separate legal matters, although both concern the same alleged plot.
India has consistently rejected allegations of official involvement in the purported assassination attempt. It has also raised concerns about activities associated with SFJ, which is banned in India. Pannun is designated as a terrorist by the Indian government and is wanted by Indian investigative agencies in connection with terrorism-related cases.
The US State Department has further clarified that it is not a party to Pannun’s civil lawsuit and cannot represent any of the parties involved. It has also stated that questions concerning jurisdiction, the validity of service and possible defences, including sovereign immunity, must be addressed before the court hearing the case.
The latest development places the dispute at the intersection of US judicial proceedings, India’s position on the allegations and diplomatic relations between the two countries. While India has categorically rejected the lawsuit, the American court process is continuing, with questions concerning the formal service of legal documents and the defendants’ potential legal responses still to be addressed.
