India rejects ‘fabricated, malicious’ lawsuit by Pannun against NSA Doval in US court

New Delhi/Washington, Nov 10 (PTI) India on Tuesday dismissed as "fabricated and malicious" allegations levelled against National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former R&AW chief Samant Goel in a civil lawsuit filed by Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in a US court.

New Delhi's remarks came after the US State Department said it delivered through a diplomatic note to the Indian side the summonses issued by the court to the officials in connection with the lawsuit.

"We reject the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials. Also we reject the frivolous lawsuits. 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," External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said at a regular media briefing.

The summonses were served through diplomatic channels to the Indian Embassy in Washington DC by the US Department of State on October 9.

"The diplomatic note was signed on September 30, 2026, and delivered on October 9, 2026," the State Department said.

Pannun, legal counsel for the banned group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), filed the lawsuit seeking damages over an alleged plot to assassinate him.

He has accused the Indian officials of orchestrating the plot.

The SFJ is a banned organisation in India. Pannun is wanted by Indian probe agencies on various terror charges.

In November 2023, US federal prosecutors charged Indian national Nikhil Gupta of working with an Indian government employee in the foiled plot to kill Pannun in New York.

"The Department has no discretion in carrying out this request from the District Court under the FSIA," the diplomatic note said, referring to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

It said the transmission of summonses should not be construed as an indication in any way of the United States' position or views on whether plaintiffs have properly complied with all statutory requirements of the FSIA, the status or character of a defendant, whether service was properly effected, or the merits of any claims or defences.

Under US law, any jurisdictional or other defence, including claims of sovereign immunity, must be addressed to the court before which the matter is pending, for which reason it is advisable to consult an attorney in the US.

The US government is not a party to this case and cannot represent other parties in this matter, the diplomatic note said. PTI