U.S. court lets Pannun serve his suit on NSA Doval through Delhi courts; India objects
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.
Published 11 November 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
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?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Show answer
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.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: India-U.S. relations and the legal-diplomatic friction from Khalistan-linked cases abroad
- How to use this
Cite the Pannun suit as a recent irritant where U.S. legal processes reach India's top security officials, testing India's self-esteem.
- On 9 November 2026 a New York court allowed Pannun to serve his suit on NSA Ajit Doval and ex-RAW chief Samant Goel through Delhi courts.
- The MEA called the suit frivolous and said service can only go through India's Central Authority, the Ministry of Law and Justice.
- The State Department took no position on the Indian-courts route, leaving the dispute to the court.
The Pannun case shows that a small section of the diaspora can also work against India's interests in host-country courts.
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.
- 1By 30 November 2026Pannun submits a packet: summons, proposed order, Indian legal provisions and returned Hague documents.
- 2Court approvalThe New York court reviews the packet.
- 3Clerk transmitsThe Clerk of Court sends the documents to the Patiala House, Dwarka and Tis Hazari court complexes in Delhi.
- 4Indian courts serveUnder Section 29(c) of the CPC, the summons can be served as if issued by an Indian court.
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.
- Article 19 lets India's own law supply a route
- CPC Section 29(c) and the 2009 notification allow foreign summons through Indian courts
- Earlier attempts through the Central Authority failed
- Service in India can only go through the Ministry of Law and Justice
- India objects to Article 10 alternative channels
- The suit is frivolous and the allegations fabricated
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.
Go deeper
Why it matters for UPSC
It joins India-U.S. relations, international law on cross-border service of documents, sovereign immunity and the challenge of Khalistan extremism abroad. Prelims can ask about the Hague conventions; Mains asks about friction in India-U.S. ties.
The core idea
Cross-border service runs through the Hague Service Convention, which India joined in 2006. The judge used the Convention's Article 19 together with Section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send papers through Indian courts. Diplomatic service had been ruled out under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for individual officials.
Numbers and dates to remember
- Order: 9 November 2026, Judge Katherine Polk Failla, Southern District of New York.
- Service packet due: 30 November 2026.
- Suit filed: September 2024.
- India acceded to the Convention on 23 November 2006; in force for India from 1 August 2007.
- MEA response: 10 November 2026; Nikhil Gupta sentencing: 20 November 2026.
Where to go next
- Hague Service Convention: the treaty on serving court papers abroad.
- Section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure: the Indian provision the U.S. judge relied on.
- Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: the U.S. law on suing foreign States.
Go deeper: procedure as diplomacy
The court's reasoning is technical. Under the Hague Service Convention, the main route is the receiving State's Central Authority. Article 19 adds that if the receiving State's own law allows other methods, those can be used too. The judge found such a method in Section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, under a January 2009 notification, applies to civil courts of all Convention countries. She also noted that Pannun's attempts through the Central Authority had failed, and that the State Department said its diplomatic route under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was not available for individual officials.
India's position rests on the same treaty. The MEA says documents can only be routed through the Ministry of Law and Justice, and India has objected to the Convention's Article 10 channels, such as postal service. India also rejects the allegations as fabricated and calls the suit frivolous.
The larger stakes are diplomatic. India and the United States are close partners, yet a civil suit naming India's NSA keeps the Pannun affair alive, alongside the criminal case in which Nikhil Gupta has pleaded guilty. Service is only the first step; questions of the officials' immunity, India's response in the Delhi courts, and whether the defendants appear are still to come.
Hague Service Convention
The treaty on serving court papers abroad.
In one line: The 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters sets common channels for serving court papers across borders.
How it works
Each member State names a Central Authority to receive requests from abroad and arrange service under its own law. Article 10 permits other channels, such as postal service, unless a State objects. Article 19 lets a State keep any domestic law allowing other methods. The Convention was adopted under the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).
India's position
India acceded on 23 November 2006, and the Convention came into force for India on 1 August 2007. Its Central Authority is the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs). India has objected to the Article 10 channels and does not allow service through diplomatic or consular channels except on the requesting State's own nationals. Requests must be in English or come with a translation.
Where to go next
Section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The Indian provision the U.S. judge relied on.
In one line: Section 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lets summonses issued by certain foreign courts be sent to Indian courts and served as if issued by them.
What it covers
Clause (c) applies to civil or revenue courts outside India to which the Central government has, by notification, extended the section. A notification of January 2009 extended it to civil courts in all countries that are party to the Hague Service Convention. Order V of the CPC contains the related rules on serving summonses, including transmitting them between courts.
Why it is in the news
The New York judge treated Section 29(c) as Indian law that, under Article 19 of the Convention, permits service through Indian courts. Pannun named three Delhi court complexes for this purpose. India's MEA maintains that service must go through the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Where to go next
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
The U.S. law on suing foreign States.
In one line: The U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 decides when a foreign State can be sued in American courts and how it must be served.
The basics
A foreign State is generally immune from U.S. courts unless an exception in the Act applies. The Act sets an order of methods for serving a foreign State; the last resort, under 28 U.S.C. section 1608(a)(4), is transmission by the State Department through diplomatic channels. In Samantar v. Yousuf (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Act does not govern the immunity of individual foreign officials.
Why it is in the news
In the Pannun case the State Department transmitted the summons against the Government of India through a diplomatic note handed to the Indian Embassy in Washington. It said that route was not available for officials such as Doval and Goel, so the court turned to the Hague route through Indian courts.
Where to go next
Take the 11 November 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers