# U.S. court lets Pannun serve his suit on NSA Doval through Delhi courts; India objects

URL: https://upsc.help/current-affairs/2026-11-11/pannun-suit-doval-hague-service/
Date: 11 November 2026 (2026-11-11)
Source: The Hindu, World
UPSC papers: GS2
Publisher: upsc.help (Pratidin), free and open-source UPSC Civil Services current affairs. Not affiliated with UPSC. Every fact was checked against the source reports by a separate review before publishing.

**In one line:** A New York judge has allowed a Khalistan campaigner designated a terrorist by India to serve his civil suit on NSA Ajit Doval and ex-RAW chief Samant Goel through Delhi courts, and India says service must go only through its Ministry of Law and Justice.

On 9 November 2026, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, general counsel of the group Sikhs for Justice, to serve his civil lawsuit on National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Samant Goel through district courts in Delhi. The judge relied on Article 19 of the Hague Service Convention, which lets a country keep domestic laws that allow other ways of transmitting documents for service. She also cited Section 29(c) of India's Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which, read with a January 2009 notification, lets summonses from civil courts of Convention countries be sent to Indian courts and served as if issued by them. Pannun named the Patiala House, Dwarka and Tis Hazari court complexes, and must submit a proposed service packet by 30 November.

Pannun filed the suit in September 2024 against the Government of India, Doval, Goel, a former RAW officer, Nikhil Gupta and unnamed others, alleging a conspiracy to kill him in New York. India rejects the allegations. Earlier attempts to serve the officials failed: Pannun tried three times to serve Doval during U.S. visits, and requests through India's Central Authority, the Ministry of Law and Justice, did not succeed. Earlier, the court rejected service by e-mail on India's Attorney-General and by publication, and accepted the U.S. State Department's view that diplomatic-channel service under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was not available for officials such as Doval and Goel. The State Department took no position on the Indian-courts route. In the related criminal case, Nikhil Gupta has pleaded guilty and is due to be sentenced on 20 November.

India's response was sharp. On 10 November, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India rejects "the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials" and "the frivolous lawsuits", and that service of judicial documents in India "can only be routed through India's designated central authority, which is the Ministry of Law and Justice". India acceded to the Hague Service Convention on 23 November 2006, with effect from 1 August 2007, and has objected to the Convention's alternative channels of service under Article 10. India has designated Pannun a terrorist and declared Sikhs for Justice an unlawful entity. The dispute is now about procedure: whether a foreign court can reach Indian officials through Indian courts when the government insists on its central authority.

## Prelims facts

- A New York federal judge on 9 November 2026 allowed Pannun to serve his civil suit on NSA Ajit Doval and ex-RAW chief Samant Goel through Delhi district courts.
- The order relied on Article 19 of the Hague Service Convention and Section 29(c) of the CPC, read with a January 2009 notification.
- The MEA said service in India can only go through the Ministry of Law and Justice, India's Central Authority under the Convention.
- India acceded to the Hague Service Convention on 23 November 2006; it entered into force for India on 1 August 2007.
- Nikhil Gupta, accused in the related U.S. criminal case, has pleaded guilty and is due to be sentenced on 20 November 2026.

## Quick recall

- **Which U.S. judge allowed service on Doval and Goel through Delhi courts?** Judge Katherine Polk Failla, Southern District of New York, on 9 November 2026.
- **Which Article of the Hague Service Convention did the judge rely on?** Article 19, which allows methods permitted by the receiving State's own law.
- **Which Indian provision lets foreign summonses be served through Indian courts?** Section 29(c) of the CPC, read with a January 2009 notification.
- **India's Central Authority under the Hague Service Convention?** Ministry of Law and Justice.
- **When did India accede to the Hague Service Convention?** 23 November 2006; in force from 1 August 2007.
- **Deadline for Pannun's proposed service packet?** 30 November 2026.
- **Which Delhi court complexes were named?** Patiala House, Dwarka and Tis Hazari.
- **MEA spokesperson who rejected the suit?** Randhir Jaiswal, on 10 November 2026.

## Prelims practice question

With reference to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, consider the following statements:
1. It was adopted in 1965 under the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
2. India's Central Authority under the Convention is the Ministry of External Affairs.
3. India has objected to the alternative methods of service under Article 10 of the Convention.
How many of the statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None

Answer: (b) Only two. 1 and 3 are correct. 2 is wrong: India's Central Authority is the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs), as the MEA itself stated on 10 November 2026.

## UPSC previous-year questions this connects to

- UPSC Mains 2019, GS2: What introduces friction into the ties between India and the United States is that Washington is still unable to find for India a position in its global strategy, which would satisfy India's National self-esteem and ambitions. Explain with suitable examples. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q375-introduces-friction-into-ties-between-india-united/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Cite the Pannun suit as a recent irritant where U.S. legal processes reach India's top security officials, testing India's self-esteem.
- UPSC Mains 2020, GS2: The Indian diaspora has a decisive role to play in the politics and economy of America and European Countries. Comment with examples. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q346-indian-diaspora-has-decisive-role-play-politics/)

## Mains practice question

Legal proceedings in foreign courts against Indian officials have become a new source of friction in India's ties with partners. Using the Pannun lawsuit in the United States as an example, discuss the legal and diplomatic issues involved. (150 words)

### Model answer

On 9 November 2026 a New York federal court allowed Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to serve his civil suit on NSA Ajit Doval and ex-RAW chief Samant Goel through Delhi courts. India called the suit frivolous.

## Legal issues
- **Service of process:** the Hague Service Convention (India party since 2007) routes service through a Central Authority, India's Ministry of Law and Justice. The court instead used Article 19 and Section 29(c) of the CPC.
- **India's objections:** India has objected to alternative channels under Article 10, and the MEA insists on the central authority route.
- **Immunity:** the State Department said FSIA diplomatic service was unavailable for individual officials, raising the question of officials' immunity.

## Diplomatic issues
- Allegations against serving officials touch national security and sovereignty.
- India designates Pannun a terrorist; the State Department took no position on the Indian-courts route.
- The related criminal case: Nikhil Gupta pleaded guilty and faces sentencing on 20 November 2026.

## Way forward
- Use legal cooperation channels and clear positions on service and immunity.
- Keep the dispute from affecting broader strategic cooperation.

India must defend its officials through law and diplomacy while keeping the partnership on course.

## The basics

## Why this matters

A lawsuit cannot move until the defendant is formally told of it. This step, called service of process, is simple at home but hard across borders, because a court in one country has no power to compel anyone in another. Countries therefore agree on channels. The Pannun order is a test of those channels, and of how far India can control them.

## The treaty route

The Hague Service Convention of 1965 sets up a Central Authority in each member country to receive and serve foreign judicial documents. India's is the Ministry of Law and Justice. India joined in 2006 and has objected to the Convention's alternative channels, such as service by post.

## The domestic-law route

The judge relied on Article 19 of the Convention, which allows other methods if the receiving country's own law permits them. That law here is Section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lets notified foreign courts send summonses to Indian courts. India's position is that service must still go through its Central Authority.

## Immunity in the background

Suits against a foreign State in U.S. courts are governed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The State Department said its diplomatic-channel route under that law was not available for individual officials, which is why the dispute turned to the Hague route.

## Sources

- https://www.barandbench.com/news/us-court-allows-gurpatwant-pannun-to-serve-lawsuit-on-ajit-doval-ex-raw-head-samant-goel-through-delhi-courts
- https://m.thewire.in/article/diplomacy/us-court-clears-way-to-send-summons-to-nsa-doval-former-raw-chief-pannun-lawsuit/amp
- https://www.wionews.com/world/india-s-mea-rejects-frivolous-lawsuit-filed-by-designated-terrorist-gurpatwant-singh-pannun-1794321198420
- https://www.livelaw.in/articles/hague-convention-and-service-of-summons-abroad-explained-306443
- https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/hague-service-convention/
- https://www.legacyias.com/the-hindu-upsc-news-analysis-for-11-november-2026/