A U.S. judge opens a path to serve Ajit Doval through Delhi courts. India calls Pannun's suit 'frivolous'

A federal judge in Manhattan on November 9 gave Gurpatwant Singh Pannun a way to deliver his civil lawsuit to two of India's most senior security figures: national security adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) chief Samant Goel. The route runs through district courts in Delhi. U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Pannun's motion to serve the two men through the Indian court system, relying on Article 19 of the Hague Service Convention and India's own Code of Civil Procedure. She gave his lawyers until November 30 to file the paperwork. In a separate step on the same docket, the U.S. State Department told the court it had delivered the summons for the Government of India itself to the Indian Embassy in Washington by diplomatic note on October 9. India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) answered on November 10 that the suit is "frivolous" and that foreign judicial papers can reach India only through its Ministry of Law and Justice.

The order is about service, the formal delivery of court papers, and not about guilt. No court has found that Doval or Goel took part in the 2023 plot to kill Pannun in New York, and neither man is charged in the U.S. criminal case. The man who has admitted a role is Nikhil Gupta, an Indian national who pleaded guilty on February 13, 2026 to murder-for-hire, conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Prosecutors say he acted at the direction of Vikash Yadav, whom they describe as an Indian government employee at the relevant time. Yadav is charged but has not been arrested. What changed this week is that a civil case stalled for two years over how to reach its defendants now has a court-approved route into India. New Delhi, for its part, has publicly said it does not accept the routes Washington has used so far.

Two tracks: a summons for India by diplomatic note, a summons for Doval and Goel through Delhi courts#

The lawsuit, Pannun v. The Government of India, case 1:24-cv-07021 in the Southern District of New York, was filed on September 17, 2024. It names the Government of India, Doval, Goel, a defendant listed as "Vikram Yadav," Gupta and 50 unnamed people. The complaint lists the alleged R&AW officer as Vikram Yadav. The federal indictment and the FBI's wanted notice use the name Vikash Yadav. The civil filings reviewed for this story do not explain the difference.

Two different rules govern how the papers reach the defendants, and the week's news came from both.

For the Indian state, U.S. law sets out a ladder. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), if mail service fails, the court clerk sends the papers to the Secretary of State. The Secretary must "transmit one copy of the papers through diplomatic channels to the foreign state" and send the court a certified copy of the diplomatic note. The docket shows the clerk mailed two copies of the summons, complaint and notice of suit to the State Department for that purpose on December 19, 2025. A State Department letter dated October 20 and filed on October 28 reported the result, according to Outlook India's account of the filing. The papers went to the embassy under a diplomatic note signed on September 30 and delivered on October 9.

For Doval and Goel as individuals, that route is closed. In an April 1 order, Failla agreed with the State Department that FSIA diplomatic service could not be used for them, as the November 9 order recounts. The reason is a reservation India filed limiting Article 8 of the Hague Convention "to the nationals of the State in which the documents originate." The new order opens a different path.

What Judge Failla decided on November 9#

The 14-page order turns on a provision of Indian law. Failla found that the Hague Convention governs Pannun's request, then held that the Convention itself permits service through India's courts. Article 19 says the treaty does not override a member state's internal law if that law allows other ways of serving documents from abroad. The order quotes Section 29(c) of India's Code of Civil Procedure, which covers summonses from foreign civil courts named in a government notification. Such summonses "may be sent to the Courts in the territories to which this Code extends, and served as if they were summonses issued by such Courts." According to the order, India's central authority issued that notification on January 12, 2009, covering "all civil courts in all the countries who are parties to the Hague Convention."

Pannun's lawyers named three Delhi court complexes with jurisdiction over the addresses where Doval and Goel are believed to live: Patiala House, Dwarka and Tis Hazari. The court "agrees with Plaintiff that Article 19 of the Hague Convention authorizes service on Doval and Goel through service of summons mailed to those courts," the order says. The State Department, consulted through the U.S. Attorney's Office, told the court it took "no position" on this route.

1. 1Plaintiff files a packetby Nov. 30, summonses, a proposed order, Indian law relied on and the returned Hague requests
2. 2Judge reviewsthe court must approve the materials first
3. 3Clerk mails the packetto the Patiala House, Dwarka and Tis Hazari court complexes in Delhi
4. 4Indian court actsthe request asks it to serve the summons as its own and report back
5. 5Record returnsproof of any service goes back to the New York court

Source: U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., order of Nov. 9, 2026 (Dkt. 46)

The ruling also records what has not worked. Pannun, the order says, "has thrice attempted to effect personal service on Doval during his official visits to the United States and has been thrice blocked by security forces protecting Doval." His requests through India's central authority came back with a short note saying the summons "does not cover in the above said categories." Pannun argued that this note meant India had decided the Hague Convention did not apply, which would have let the court approve other methods. Failla rejected that reading, calling the note "hardly a model of clarity" and saying it might have been a procedural rejection. Earlier, on April 1, she had refused email service on India's Attorney General, service on lawyers who represented Yadav in an unrelated Indian criminal case, and service by publication. The order calls those proposals "end-runs" around a 2025 appeals court decision, Smart Study, that limits alternative service in Hague Convention countries.

The order leaves several questions open. It does not decide whether a Delhi court will act on the request, whether Doval or Goel can claim immunity as current or former officials, or whether the case can go forward on the merits. Failla wrote that if "the Government of India or an Indian court later express a contrary view" on the Convention's application, she reserves the right to reassess.

New Delhi's answer: "frivolous" suits and the Law Ministry channel#

India's response came at the MEA's regular briefing on November 10. "We reject the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials, as also we reject the frivolous lawsuits," spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, as reported by The Hindu. "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." The ministry is headed by External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. The Hindu reported that the ministry signaled it was unconcerned and that issuing the notice would require engaging the Law Ministry directly, not the embassy or the MEA.

The statement matches India's position since the suit was filed. In September 2024, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri called the case's claims "completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated imputations" and said the filing did not "change our views about the underlying situation." He also pointed reporters to "the person behind this particular case whose antecedents are well known."

Those antecedents are central to New Delhi's case. On July 1, 2020, the Home Ministry under Amit Shah designated Pannun a terrorist under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It described him as a "USA based key member of Unlawful Association, 'Sikh for Justice'" and said the designated men were trying to revive militancy in Punjab. In July 2024 the ministry extended its ban on Sikhs for Justice for five more years, citing "anti-national and subversive activities aimed at disrupting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India." Pannun disputes that portrayal. His complaint describes the Khalistan referendum campaign he leads through Sikhs for Justice as "peaceful," calls the UAPA "draconian," and says India has sought INTERPOL Red Notices against him "based on trumped-up charges."

India has also said it investigated the U.S. allegations itself. A high-level inquiry committee formed in November 2023 on the basis of U.S. information reported to the government on January 15, 2025, according to a Home Ministry release. It recommended prompt legal action against one unnamed individual whose past criminal links and background had come to light during the inquiry, and called for improvements to systems and procedures. The release named no official and acknowledged no government role. In October 2024, the MEA said Yadav was no longer a government employee.

There is a gap between the two governments' positions on process. The MEA says the Law Ministry is the only channel. That ministry is India's Hague central authority, and according to the U.S. order it has already returned Pannun's requests to serve Doval and Goel. The November 9 order instead relies on a separate Indian procedure that lets foreign summonses be sent straight to Indian courts. India's public statement does not say whether it considers that route lawful, and no Indian court has yet ruled on it.

Pannun says discovery will expose a "chain of command"#

Pannun answered the State Department's delivery the night before the MEA briefing. In an X post at 10:34 p.m. Eastern on November 9, he said the note gives India "60 days to respond by the December 8 deadline" and that "if Government of India does not respond, the court could enter a default judgment." He added: "Through discovery in this civil lawsuit, we intend to establish the Indian government's role in Shaheed Nijjar's assassination and expose the chain of command behind the operations in Canada and America."

Parts of that statement track the statute, and part of it needs a qualification. The FSIA says service by diplomatic note is deemed made "as of the date of transmittal" shown in the note, and that a foreign state must answer "within sixty days." Sixty days from October 9 is December 8. The same section also says no default judgment may be entered against a foreign state "unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court." A missed deadline would not, by itself, decide the case. Whether India would appear to contest jurisdiction or immunity is not known. India's MEA statement did not say.

The complaint's account of the plot goes beyond the criminal case. It alleges that Yadav oversaw the scheme and that Goel and Doval approved it, and it says "upon information and belief" that the defendants acted with the knowledge of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi is not a defendant. The complaint says that is "due to his immunity as head of a foreign sovereign." For its claims about senior officials, it relies partly on an April 2024 Washington Post report that it says described a U.S. intelligence assessment that Doval was "probably aware" of R&AW plans. Those are allegations in a pleading, not findings. India denies them, and the U.S. criminal charges name only Gupta and Yadav. The complaint seeks damages for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, plus punitive damages. Pannun's lawyer Matthew Borden of BraunHagey & Borden puts the case in terms of U.S. rights. "When a foreign government seeks to export tyranny and murder, our citizens have a right to seek redress in the courts," he says on the firm's case page.

What the State Department did, and did not, say#

The diplomatic note was explicit that Washington was not taking sides. "The Department has no discretion in carrying out this request from the District Court under the FSIA," the note said, according to India Today's report on the filing. It added that the transmission should not be read as a U.S. position on several questions. Those include whether the plaintiff complied with the law, the status of any defendant, whether service was proper, and the merits of any claims or defenses. It said any challenge to the court's jurisdiction, including a claim of sovereign immunity, must be raised before the court, and that the U.S. government is not a party to the case.

That neutrality on the civil case sits beside a criminal prosecution in which U.S. officials have used strong language. When Gupta pleaded guilty, FBI New York head James C. Barnacle Jr. said that "at the direction and coordination of an Indian government employee, Nikhil Gupta plotted to assassinate a United States citizen on American soil," according to the Justice Department and DEA announcement. The release says Yadav agreed, through Gupta, to pay an undercover officer $100,000 for the killing and arranged a $15,000 advance on or about June 9, 2023. It also says Gupta told the officer not to act around the Indian Prime Minister's state visit that month. After Hardeep Singh Nijjar was shot dead in British Columbia on June 18, 2023, the release says, Gupta told the officer there was "now no need to wait." The release describes those facts as allegations in the indictment, other court documents and statements made in court.

The DEA release lists the maximum penalty for each count Gupta admitted. The judge will set the actual sentence.

0

5

10

15

20

Murder-for-hire10

Conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire10

Conspiracy to commit money laundering20

Murder-for-hireConspiracy to commit murder-for-hireConspiracy to commit money laundering

Source: U.S. Attorney's Office S.D.N.Y. / DEA, Feb. 13, 2026

Show the numbers

Count	Maximum term
Murder-for-hire	10
Conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire	10
Conspiracy to commit money laundering	20

Gupta's sentencing before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero is now set for November 20. In August, prosecutors asked to move it from September 25 so that Pannun, as the victim, could attend and be heard.

How the case reached this point#

The civil case has moved slowly because of service, and the dates show how the criminal and civil tracks overlap.

1. 2023-06-09$15,000 advance allegedly delivered to an undercover officer
2. 2023-06-18Hardeep Singh Nijjar killed in British Columbia
3. 2023-06-30Gupta arrested in the Czech Republic
4. 2024-09-17Pannun files civil suit in New York
5. 2025-01-15India's inquiry panel reports, recommends action against one person
6. 2025-12-19Clerk sends papers for India to the State Department
7. 2026-02-13Gupta pleads guilty to all three counts
8. 2026-04-01Court rejects email, publication and FSIA routes for individuals
9. 2026-10-09Diplomatic note delivered to India's embassy
10. 2026-11-09Court approves service on Doval and Goel through Delhi courts
11. 2026-11-20Gupta sentencing scheduled

Source: DEA, S.D.N.Y. docket, Nov. 9 order

The Hindu reported that Pannun also tried and failed to serve Doval in February 2025, when Doval accompanied Modi to Washington for talks with President Donald Trump. The newspaper added that U.S. and Canadian investigators "appear to have dropped earlier claims" about the involvement of more senior officials, naming Doval, Goel and Shah. That is the paper's characterization. Neither government's statements reviewed for this story addressed it directly. The newspaper also reported that Yadav was arrested in Delhi in December 2023 on separate charges and granted bail in April 2024. Pannun's lawyers have told the New York court he "is currently in hiding and his whereabouts are unknown," the November 9 order notes.

What the dispute means for India–U.S. relations#

India describes the wider relationship as steady. At the same November 10 briefing, Jaiswal said the U.S. midterm results were an internal matter and that "the India-US relationship enjoys strong bipartisan support," according to ETV Bharat. India also pursues its interests in Washington through ordinary channels. Its embassy hired a lobbying firm whose filings list contacts with senior officials, as shown in 567 Politics' review of FARA records for Jason Miller's firm. Neither government has linked the civil case to that broader agenda.

Sikh American civil rights groups see the stakes differently. The Sikh Coalition, which describes itself as the largest Sikh civil rights organization in the United States, told the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in May that "higher-ranking Indian officials credibly implicated in public reporting and intelligence assessments have yet to be investigated or held responsible," in a statement for the record. It argued that India's description of Yadav as a lone actor obscures "the broader chain of command." The group is not a party to Pannun's suit.

Indian officials frame the case around the plaintiff and the merits. Misri's 2024 remark about Pannun's "antecedents" and Jaiswal's description of the suits as "frivolous" treat the litigation as baseless. In 2024 Misri also stressed that Pannun's group is unlawful under Indian law. Neither side's characterization has been tested in court. The legal questions the court faces next are narrower. One is whether a Delhi court will serve a U.S. summons on a sitting national security adviser. Others are whether Doval can claim immunity as a serving official and Goel as a former one, and whether India will appear by December 8 to contest jurisdiction.

What to watch#

• November 20: Gupta's sentencing in Manhattan, where Pannun has asked to be heard.
• November 30: Deadline for Pannun's lawyers to file the service packet for Doval and Goel. The judge must approve it before the clerk sends it to Delhi.
• December 8: Sixty days after the October 9 diplomatic note, the date Pannun cites for India's answer under the FSIA.
• Delhi district courts: Whether the Patiala House, Dwarka or Tis Hazari courts act on the request, refuse it, or refer it to the Law Ministry. The MEA's statement suggests the government will argue the Law Ministry is the only proper route.

This story relies on the court's November 9 order and earlier docket entries, the 2024 complaint, U.S. and Indian government releases, and news reports of the MEA briefing. The State Department's October filing and the April 1 order were not available in full. Their contents are described from news reports and from the November 9 order's summary. An official MEA transcript of the November 10 briefing had not been posted when this was written.

Differing perspectives

Should India's national security adviser and a former spy chief have to answer Pannun's civil lawsuit in a U.S. court?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• Investigate and hold senior officials accountable

  Who holds it: The Sikh Coalition and other Sikh American civil rights advocates

  The Sikh Coalition argues that Gupta's guilty plea and the charges against Yadav point to a coordinated campaign of transnational repression against Sikh diaspora activists. It says higher-ranking Indian officials implicated in public reporting and intelligence assessments have not been investigated or held responsible, and that describing Yadav as a lone actor hides the broader chain of command. It calls for full investigation, arrest and prosecution of everyone responsible to protect Sikhs across North America.

  In their words: The Sikh Coalition ↗

• Let the lawsuit proceed against every named defendant

  Who holds it: Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, Sikhs for Justice and his lawyers at BraunHagey & Borden

  Pannun argues that a U.S. citizen targeted for killing on U.S. soil is entitled to seek damages from everyone he says planned, directed and funded the plot, including India's national security adviser and a former R&AW chief. He says discovery in the civil case can establish the Indian government's role in the plot against him and in Hardeep Singh Nijjar's killing, and expose the chain of command behind operations in Canada and the United States. He notes that the State Department delivered the summons to India's embassy and says India must respond by December 8.

  In their words: Gurpatwant Singh Pannun (@SFJGenCounsel) on X ↗

• Reject the suit and use only India's Law Ministry channel

  Who holds it: Government of India: MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri

  India's government says the allegations against its senior officials are fabricated and malicious and the lawsuits frivolous. It argues that foreign judicial papers can be served in India only through its designated central authority, the Ministry of Law and Justice, not through its embassy or foreign ministry. Officials point to the plaintiff's record, noting that India has designated him a terrorist and banned his group, and say India's own inquiry committee has already examined the U.S. information and recommended action against one individual.

  In their words: The Hindu (quoting MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal) ↗

• Transmit the papers and let the court rule on immunity

  Who holds it: U.S. Department of State, in its diplomatic note and court filings

  The State Department says it had no discretion under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and was legally required to deliver the court's summons to India's embassy. It says the delivery is not a position on whether the plaintiff followed the law, on any defendant's status, on whether service was proper, or on the merits. Any challenge to jurisdiction, including sovereign immunity, must be raised before the court hearing the case, and the U.S. government is not a party to it.

  In their words: India Today (quoting the State Department's diplomatic note) ↗

{{cite news |title=A U.S. judge opens a path to serve Ajit Doval through Delhi courts. India calls Pannun's suit 'frivolous' |url=https://567politics.com/news/india-pannun-lawsuit-doval-goel-delhi-courts-service-mea-frivolous-november-2026 |work=567politics |author=567 Politics staff |date=2026-11-11 |language=en}}

{
  "id": "https://567politics.com/news/india-pannun-lawsuit-doval-goel-delhi-courts-service-mea-frivolous-november-2026",
  "type": "article-newspaper",
  "title": "A U.S. judge opens a path to serve Ajit Doval through Delhi courts. India calls Pannun's suit 'frivolous'",
  "URL": "https://567politics.com/news/india-pannun-lawsuit-doval-goel-delhi-courts-service-mea-frivolous-november-2026",
  "container-title": "567politics",
  "language": "en",
  "author": [
    {
      "literal": "567 Politics staff"
    }
  ],
  "issued": {
    "date-parts": [
      [
        2026,
        11,
        11
      ]
    ]
  }
}

<iframe src="https://567politics.com/embed/news/india-pannun-lawsuit-doval-goel-delhi-courts-service-mea-frivolous-november-2026?theme=auto" title="A U.S. judge opens a path to serve Ajit Doval through Delhi courts. India calls Pannun's suit 'frivolous' by 567politics" width="100%" height="440" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font-size:14px">A U.S. judge opens a path to serve Ajit Doval through Delhi courts. India calls Pannun's suit 'frivolous' by <a href="https://567politics.com/news/india-pannun-lawsuit-doval-goel-delhi-courts-service-mea-frivolous-november-2026" rel="nofollow">567politics</a></p>
<script async src="https://567politics.com/embed.js"></script>