US court exploring if summons can be served on Doval, Goel through Indian courts

• Khalistani ‘activist’ is pursuing a civil lawsuit for damages against Indian officials, NSA Ajit Doval and former R&AW chief Samant Goel. The FBI is prosecuting Indian businessman Nikhil Gupta in a criminal lawsuit for hiring contract killers to assassinate Pannun in the US. The two cases are different

• While names of Doval and Goel have been dropped from the criminal prosecution following the guilty plea by the businessman, Pannun is pursuing his civil lawsuit claiming damages

• The US court has kept the civil suit alive and is exploring if notices can be served on Indian officials through channels other than the union ministry of law and justice.

A U.S. court on 9 November 2026 allowed US-based ‘Khalistani activist’ Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to serve notices on his civil plea for damages on Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval and former R&AW chief Samant Goel. The State Department had earlier informed the court that it had served the notice for the two officials at the Indian embassy in Washington, as was required under the US law on 9 October this year.

The State Department said in a footnote that the delivery did not mean it was taking a “position” on the case and that the notice was served on the embassy as a “legal obligation.

Since the notices had not been ‘served’, the court allowed Pannun to try and serve the summons through the Indian judicial system. What it means is that the court agreed to keep the case alive. The State Department also clarified that it was not "backing" Pannun and endorsing the charges. And it is not accusing the Indian government either.

The Ministry of External Affairs dismissed the ‘frivolous’ charges against the NSA Ajit Doval and R&AW chief Goel and added that such judicial documents must be sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice in India. The procedure for issuing the notice would require engaging the Law Ministry directly, not via the Embassy or the MEA.

“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,” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said in response to questions at a regular briefing.

Pannun’s civil lawsuit is different from the FBI’s criminal prosecution of Indian businessman Nikhil Gupta for a criminal conspiracy to hire a hitman in the US to assassinate the ‘separatist’ in New York. The FBI had recorded the businessman’s conversations in 2023 with the undercover agent and also his conversations with Vikas Yadav, who was allegedly employed by the R&AW, the external intelligence agency in India. The businessman had pleaded guilty, thus ruling out a criminal trial. The sentencing is scheduled for Friday next week on 20 November.

Vikas Yadav was arrested in Delhi in December 2023 on separate charges by Indian agencies and was reportedly released on bail in April 2024. His whereabouts and the status of the case against him are, however, not known. Although the FBI had indicated the probable consent to the assassination plot to senior Indian officials, Gupta is believed to have admitted to his own role and has not incriminated others. A parallel investigation by the FBI and Canadian officials investigating a similar case involving the killing of separatist Harjeet Singh Nijjar in Vancouver in June 2023, has also dropped earlier claims of the involvement of more senior officials, including Ajit Doval, Samant Goel and union home minister Amit Shah.

Pannun has however filed several petitions urging the court to issue summons to India’s National Security Advisor and former R&AW chief. He had unsuccessfully tried to serve a notice on NSA Doval in Washington when he accompanied PM Modi on a bilateral visit.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla this week directed Mr. Pannun to prepare documents on or before 30 November, including the summons addressed to the Indian officials, the route by which the summons would be issued, as well as records of previous attempts at serving the two officials under the Hague Convention.

Significantly, however, Judge Katherine Polk Failla appears to have accepted Pannun's argument that Article 19 of the Convention, read with provisions of India's Code of Civil Procedure, may permit service of notices through Indian courts, rather than exclusively through the central authority, the ministry of law and justice. The judge is exploring if the union ministry of law and justice the only route through which notices can be served.

The order means Pannun’s civil lawsuit remains alive and has overcome a procedural obstacle. India will have to decide whether to ignore the proceedings, challenge the court’s jurisdiction, or make a limited appearance.

The FBI’s criminal prosecution of Nikhil Gupta remains the more important legal development and the sentencing on 20 November may have a bearing on Pannun’s claim for damages in his civil lawsuit.