US Judge Allows Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to Serve Lawsuit on Indian Officials Through Delhi Courts
A federal court in New York has allowed US-based Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to serve his civil lawsuit on India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Samant Goel through Indian courts in Delhi. The order was issued on November 9, 2026, by US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York.
The court granted Pannun’s request to use the Indian judicial system to deliver legal documents to the two officials after earlier attempts to serve them through other channels were unsuccessful. The latest decision marks another procedural development in a lawsuit that has remained pending since 2024.
Under the court’s directions, Pannun must submit the required documents and supporting legal material by November 30, 2026. The submission must include the summons, a proposed order explaining the method of service, a formal request to the Indian courts and relevant provisions of Indian law. The documents will be forwarded to the appropriate Indian courts after approval.
The lawsuit was filed by Pannun on September 17, 2024, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. It names the Government of India, Ajit Doval, former RAW chief Samant Goel, Vikram Yadav, Nikhil Gupta and other unidentified individuals as defendants.
Pannun alleges that Indian officials were involved in an unsuccessful plot to assassinate him in New York in 2023. He has sought damages over the alleged assassination conspiracy and claims of assault and emotional distress. These allegations remain subject to judicial proceedings and have not been established against the named Indian officials in the civil case.
The lawsuit is connected to a separate US criminal investigation involving Indian national Nikhil Gupta, who pleaded guilty in February 2026 to charges including murder-for-hire conspiracy. US prosecutors alleged that Gupta worked with Vikash Yadav, whom they identified as an Indian government employee, in connection with the alleged assassination plot.
The Indian government has consistently rejected allegations of official involvement in the alleged conspiracy. New Delhi has described the accusations as unwarranted and unsubstantiated. India has also designated Pannun a terrorist under its domestic law and declared his organisation, Sikhs for Justice, an unlawful association.
The latest judicial order follows an earlier unsuccessful attempt to serve legal papers on Ajit Doval during his visit to Washington in February 2025. At that time, the court rejected Pannun’s claim that the documents had been properly delivered to the National Security Adviser.
Separately, the US State Department confirmed that it had transmitted the summons and complaint in the civil lawsuit to the Indian Embassy in Washington through a diplomatic note on October 9, 2026. The department informed the New York court that the transmission was carried out under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which establishes procedures for serving legal documents on foreign governments.
However, the State Department clarified that transmitting the documents did not represent an endorsement of Pannun’s allegations or a position on the legal merits of the lawsuit. Questions concerning the effectiveness of service, sovereign immunity and possible legal defences remain matters for the court.
The latest ruling does not establish the allegations against Doval, Goel or the Indian government, nor does it constitute a finding of liability. It allows the plaintiff to pursue another legally recognised procedure for delivering the lawsuit documents.
The proceedings are expected to remain an important legal and diplomatic issue in India-US relations, particularly given the sensitivity surrounding allegations of transnational assassination plots and the involvement of government officials. The next significant development will depend on the completion of the court-approved service procedure and the subsequent legal responses from the defendants.
