New Delhi: The Indian government Thursday received a summons from a New York court after designated terrorist and Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun filed a civil suit in connection with an alleged plot to kill him on US soil last year.
Pannun’s lawsuit, filed days ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US, seeks damages for the alleged murder for hire plot. It names the Government of India, India’s National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval, former Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) chief Samant Goel, former R&AW officer Vikram Yadav, and Nikhil Gupta, the Indian citizen in US custody over the alleged murder plot.
India now has 21 days to respond, else it will face a judgement by default, according to the summons issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Pannun is the founder of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), which was designated as a terrorist organisation by the Government of India in 2019 for its separatist activities.
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri Thursday dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the new case does not “change our views on the underlying situation”. He added that “these are completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated imputations”.
Modi is set to travel to the US from 21 to 23 September for the Quad Leaders’ Summit, and the Summit of the Future, to be hosted by the United Nations in New York.
As reported by ThePrint earlier, Doval is expected to travel along with Modi for the visit.
Also Read: Go back to ‘motherland’ India, says Pannun after Canada Hindu MP talks of temple vandalism
‘To hold high-ranking officials accountable’
According to Matthew Borden, Pannun’s lawyer, the purpose of the lawsuit is to hold the government and a “number of high-ranking [Indian] officials accountable under US tort law”.
“After the US indicted Gupta, India reported to do its own investigation and concluded that Gupta was a ‘rogue agent’. At the same time, Prime Minister Modi was out there on the campaign trail saying things like — this is the new India, we will come to your home and kill you,” Borden said at a press conference.
He added: “Even though Prime Minister Modi might try to hide behind diplomatic immunity, the purpose of this case is to hold the people accountable for this violation of US law, this violation of international law and this violation of basic human rights.”
Richard J. Rogers, another lawyer for Pannun, highlighted that the “murder plot” is part of a “worrying trend” of autocratic states committing transnational oppression amongst its communities living abroad.
Last year, the Indian government faced accusations of being involved in the killing of designated terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada, as well as the plot to assassinate Pannun.
New Delhi has rejected its involvement in both cases. While four Indians were arrested by Canadian authorities earlier this year in connection with Nijjar’s killing, no evidence of a link to government officials has been shared by Ottawa till date.
In the case of Pannun, India announced that a high-level committee was formed in November 2023 to look into the evidence shared by US authorities and necessary action will be taken. Foreign secretary Misri Thursday said the relevant agencies have been engaged on this issue.
The civil lawsuit filed by Pannun seeks financial compensation from the Indian government for assault and emotional distress. It does not name Modi, but alleges he was aware of the plot.
“The amount of damages we are going to seek in this case will be proven at trial…There is a lot of harm that has been done to Pannun, in terms of all the security he has had to engage in terms of the ongoing threats to him. So we intend to seek full compensation for all of that and that will be put to a jury someday we hope,” Borden said Wednesday.
The lawyer added: “The court has jurisdiction of this case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…We intend to prosecute the claims just like you would in any other tort case…Our intention is to subject this whole process to US courts, to US rule of law, which allows us to get to the bottom of a lot of these facts.”
Why the civil case route
The reason for selecting the civil case route is that under US civil law, there is a “lower standard” of proof necessary. “We do not have to prove our claim beyond a reasonable doubt, we have to prove it by the preponderance of the evidence,” explained Borden.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of the US, which came into effect in 1977, establishes a default rule that foreign states are immune from the jurisdiction of US domestic courts unless an action falls within an exception set out in the law.
The exceptions include — explicit or implicit waiver of immunity for the foreign state, commercial activity carried out in the US, property taken in violation of international law, money damages sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death or damage to property in the US as a result of an act of the foreign state.
Other exceptions include money damages sought against a foreign state, which has been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)