NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York has cleared the way for Sikh separatist activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to serve his civil lawsuit on two of India's most senior security officials through the courts in Delhi.

US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled on Monday, November 9, that Pannun may serve the case on National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Samant Goel under Article 19 of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. India rejected the move on Tuesday, calling the lawsuit "frivolous" and insisting papers must go through its Ministry of Law and Justice.

Key Points

• Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled on November 9 that Pannun may serve Doval and Goel through Indian courts under Article 19 of the Hague Convention.
• Pannun must file a proposed service packet by November 30, 2026; the court clerk will then transmit the documents to courts in Delhi.
• The State Department said it had already served the summons on the Government of India at its Washington embassy.
• India rejected the ruling, saying documents must go through its Ministry of Law and Justice and calling the case "frivolous".
• The suit, filed in September 2024, alleges a 2023 plot to assassinate Pannun in New York; defendant Nikhil Gupta pleaded guilty in February 2026 and is due to be sentenced on November 20.

What Happened

Judge Failla's order, dated Monday, November 9, 2026, allows Pannun to serve his civil lawsuit on Doval and Goel through the Indian court system. It relies on Article 19 of the Hague Convention, which permits service by methods allowed under the law of the country where the documents are to be delivered, rather than the treaty's standard central-authority route.

Before any papers travel, Pannun must submit a proposed service packet by November 30, 2026, including the summonses, the proposed method of service, relevant Indian law provisions and records of earlier attempts. Once the court approves it, the Clerk of Court will transmit the documents to courts in Delhi. Three courts were identified in the proceedings: Patiala House, Dwarka and Tis Hazari.

Service on the Government of India was handled separately: the State Department said it sent that summons to the Indian Embassy in Washington under a diplomatic note signed September 30 and handed over October 9.

Background and Context

Pannun filed the civil suit in September 2024, naming the Government of India, Doval, Goel, Vikash Yadav, Nikhil Gupta and unnamed defendants. The case centres on an alleged 2023 plot to assassinate Pannun in New York. Pannun, a US-based activist who campaigns for a separate Sikh state, has been designated a terrorist by India under its anti-terror law, a label he rejects.

The alleged plot became public in late 2023, when US prosecutors charged Gupta with conspiring to hire a hitman to kill Pannun, saying it was directed by an Indian government employee later identified as Yadav. Gupta pleaded guilty in February 2026 and is due to be sentenced on November 20.

Pannun Lawsuit: How Service Through Delhi Courts Would Work

The standard way to serve judicial documents abroad under the Hague Convention is through the receiving country's designated central authority — in India's case, the Ministry of Law and Justice. That is the route New Delhi insists must be used.

Judge Failla's order takes a different path: Article 19 allows service by any method permitted under the law of the destination country, and she found serving through Indian courts falls within it. The summonses would be delivered by the Delhi courts themselves, rather than through a government ministry.

The order does not decide whether Doval or Goel can ultimately be held liable, nor does it rule on immunity. It removes the procedural block that had kept the lawsuit from reaching two of its named defendants.

Reactions and Quotes

India's Ministry of External Affairs responded on Tuesday, November 10, saying judicial documents must be sent through the Ministry of Law and Justice, India's designated central authority, and calling the lawsuit "frivolous". It holds that the central-authority route is the only proper channel.

The State Department told the court it had already completed service on the Government of India, with the note signed September 30 and handed over to the Indian Embassy in Washington on October 9. It has not commented publicly on the ruling for Doval and Goel, and neither man has commented on the case.

Why It Matters

The ruling tests the reach of US courts over senior officials of a friendly government. India is a major US partner on trade, technology and security in Asia, and a case putting its national security adviser before a New York court — even a civil one — is diplomatically sensitive. New Delhi's swift rejection suggests it will contest the service, and possibly the case itself.

It also matters as a precedent: if service through foreign courts becomes accepted in cases like this, other plaintiffs alleging transnational repression could follow. For now, the ruling changes nothing about the merits — it decides only that the lawsuit can be delivered to two more of the people it names.

What Happens Next

Pannun must file his service packet by November 30, 2026. Once approved, the Clerk of Court will transmit the documents to the Delhi courts named in the proceedings. India may challenge the service or the court's jurisdiction, and the defendants may raise immunity defences.

Separately, Gupta is due to be sentenced on November 20, closing the criminal strand of the alleged plot. The civil case will move only as fast as its service, jurisdiction and immunity questions allow — a process that could take months, and one New Delhi has signalled it will fight.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Gurpatwant Singh Pannun?
Pannun is a US-based Sikh separatist activist who campaigns for a separate Sikh state. India has designated him a terrorist under its anti-terror law, a label he rejects.

What did Judge Failla actually decide?
She ruled Pannun may serve his lawsuit on Ajit Doval and Samant Goel through Indian courts under Article 19 of the Hague Convention. It is about delivering the papers, not about whether the allegations are true.

Why does India object?
India's Ministry of External Affairs says judicial documents must go through the Ministry of Law and Justice, its designated central authority under the Hague Convention, and it has called the lawsuit "frivolous".

What is the Hague Convention on service?
It is a treaty on how court documents are delivered across borders. The standard route is through each country's designated central authority, but Article 19 also allows methods permitted under the destination country's law.

What happens next?
Pannun must file a service packet by November 30, 2026; the court clerk will then transmit the documents to courts in Delhi. India may challenge the service, and co-defendant Nikhil Gupta is due to be sentenced on November 20.

Related coverage: RAF Fairford terror plot: US charges three Iran-backed operatives in court; US Army soldier arrested in Gloucester on suspicion of spying for Russia; Netanyahu calls Trump every day to urge new strikes on Iran, FT reports.