New Delhi: Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, designated a terrorist by the Indian government, has managed to convince a US judge to allow him to pursue an alternative route to serve summons on National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) chief Samant Goel through courts in Delhi.
In response, the Ministry of External Affairs rejected what it called a “frivolous lawsuit” and asserted that judicial documents for service in India can only be routed through the country’s designated central authority, the Ministry of Law and Justice.
This raises a question—can a foreign court invoke India’s civil procedure to serve legal papers on individuals in the country without first securing the Ministry’s approval?
Pannun relied on the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters to argue that a US court could send summons to Indian courts for service. US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York accepted this argument as a possible legal route. In an order dated 9 November, she directed Pannun’s lawyers to submit a proposed set of documents by 30 November. After reviewing them, the US court’s clerk may forward the papers to the identified courts in Delhi.
In the civil suit filed in September 2024, Pannun alleged that Indian officials and others were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate him in New York in 2023 because of his alleged “Khalistani” links. The defendants include the Government of India, Doval, Goel and others. The allegations have not been established by the 9 November order.
The civil suit is separate from the US criminal proceedings against Indian national Nikhil Gupta and former R&AW officer Vikash Yadav over the alleged murder-for-hire plot.
Also Read: US seeks 20 minutes for Pannun to address court at Nikhil Gupta’s sentencing in murder-for-hire case
What route has the US court accepted?
The judge relied on Article 19 of the Hague Convention, which allows service of foreign judicial documents through methods permitted under the domestic law of the country where service is sought.
India is a party to the Convention. Pannun argued that Article 19 therefore allows him to invoke Section 29(c) of India’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides for summons issued by certain foreign courts to be transmitted to Indian courts for service.
The US court accepted this as a possible route to serve Doval and Goel through India’s judicial system. The procedure is set out in Order V of the CPC. Under Rule 21, a court can send summons to another court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. Rule 23 provides for the receiving court to deal with the summons and report back to the court that sent it.
Pannun has proposed that the documents be sent to one of three courts in Delhi—Patiala House, Dwarka and Tis Hazari.
In effect, the proposal is for the US court to send the summons to designated Indian courts, which would then follow Indian law to serve them. It is not a proposal for the US court to serve the officials directly. Instead, Pannun is seeking to use a procedure that he argues is available under Indian law.
Why is India objecting?
The dispute centres on the Hague Convention’s central authority mechanism.
Under Article 2, every contracting country must designate a central authority to receive requests for service from other contracting countries. In India, this responsibility rests with the Department of Legal Affairs under the Ministry of Law and Justice.
The usual procedure is for a foreign court or litigant to send a service request to the designated central authority, which processes it under the receiving country’s laws.
As per court records, Pannun had previously attempted to serve Doval and Goel through India’s Ministry of Law and Justice in 2024, but the requests were returned with the ministry saying the summons are not covered under the Hague Convention.
Pannun subsequently proposed Section 29(c) of the CPC, read with a 2009 notification extending the provision to civil courts in countries that are parties to the Hague Convention, as an alternative route.
India’s position, as stated by the MEA on 10 November, is different. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, “Requests 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 government also rejected the lawsuit, describing the allegations against its officials as fabricated and malicious.
The US State Department did not take a position on Pannun’s proposal to use Indian courts. The judge also left open the possibility of revisiting the issue if Indian authorities provide a formal clarification or objection.
Another provision relevant to the dispute is Article 10 of the Hague Convention. It permits certain forms of direct service, including through postal channels, provided the receiving country does not object. India has objected to the methods of service permitted under Article 10.
What happened before, and what happens next?
The latest order follows several unsuccessful attempts by Pannun’s legal team to serve the defendants.
According to the court record, his lawyers made three attempts to serve Doval personally during visits to the US, but security personnel prevented the process servers from completing delivery.
The US court had also rejected Pannun’s earlier proposals to use alternative methods of service. These included sending the documents by email to India’s Attorney General, handing them to lawyers representing one of the defendants in a separate criminal case, and publishing a notice in the media.
The 9 November order directs Pannun’s lawyers to submit a proposed service packet by 30 November. It must include copies of the summons, a proposed order specifying the method of service, the Indian legal provisions being relied upon and records of the earlier attempts under the Hague Convention’s Article 5 procedure.
After reviewing the documents, the US court’s clerk may forward them to the identified Delhi courts. Whether the summons are ultimately served will depend on how the Indian courts and authorities respond. The latest order does not mean that service has been completed.
The US State Department has separately informed the court that it sent the summons and complaint against the Indian government to the Indian Embassy in Washington through a diplomatic note. This is distinct from the proposed transmission of summons against Doval and Goel to courts in Delhi.
The procedure for serving summons on the Government of India is separate from the proposed route for Doval and Goel. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) governs service on a foreign government, while service on individual defendants is covered by Rule 4(f) of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Convention.
Can Pannun use this route?
ThePrint spoke to advocate VVS Satyanarayana about what could happen if the summons reach a Delhi court. He said the court could take either of two courses, depending on the judge’s discretion. It could decline to entertain the request on the ground that the documents must first be routed through the Ministry of Law and Justice, or accept them and seek the Ministry’s opinion on how to proceed.
The 9 November order, thus, allows Pannun to pursue the Section 29(c) route by asking the US court to transmit the summons to Indian courts. However, this does not mean he can bypass the Ministry altogether or compel an Indian court to serve the summons to Doval and Goel.
Aditya Edara is a TPSJ alum currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)