Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Tuesday that New Delhi considered the accusations fabricated and malicious, following confirmation that the US State Department had delivered judicial papers to India’s embassy in Washington.
“We reject the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials. Also, we reject the frivolous lawsuits,” Jaiswal told a briefing in New Delhi.
He insisted that requests to serve judicial documents within India must pass through the Ministry of Law and Justice, the country’s designated central authority. His remarks highlighted a procedural dispute alongside the government’s categorical rejection of the lawsuit’s allegations.
The case names National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing chief Samant Goel among defendants. Pannun seeks damages over an alleged conspiracy to assassinate him in New York in 2023. The accusations in his civil complaint have not been established by a court.
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order on November 9 permitting Pannun to pursue service of summons on Doval and Goel through courts in India. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed him to submit a proposed package of documents by November 30 outlining the intended procedure and relevant legal provisions.
That order concerns how defendants may be notified of proceedings. It does not determine whether the allegations are true, establish liability or resolve any jurisdictional objections that the defendants might raise.
Separately, the State Department confirmed in a filing that it had transmitted a summons, complaint and notice of suit to the embassy in Washington. Its diplomatic note was signed on September 30 and delivered on October 9, preceding the November court order.
The department explained that its action followed a request from the federal court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which governs certain proceedings involving foreign states before US courts. It said the transmission was a statutory responsibility rather than an endorsement of Pannun’s allegations.
The diplomatic communication made clear that Washington was not taking a position on the merits of the claims, the status of any defendant or whether the requirements for service had been satisfied. It also stated that the US government was not a party to the civil action and could not represent its defendants.
The court has not announced a trial date in the civil action, and the dispute over notification remains separate from its claims.
The distinction is significant because delivery of court papers is a procedural stage, not a ruling against the people or institutions named. Questions concerning jurisdiction, immunity and the validity of service remain matters for judicial consideration.
Pannun is associated with Sikhs for Justice, an organisation banned by India. The Ministry of Home Affairs has designated him a terrorist under domestic law. That designation reflects the government’s legal position and does not constitute a US judicial finding on his civil claims.
His lawsuit follows a separate US criminal investigation into an alleged plan to kill him. Federal prosecutors accused Nikhil Gupta of participating in a murder-for-hire conspiracy involving an individual they identified as a government employee from India. The criminal allegations and the civil claims involve distinct proceedings and legal standards.
US authorities have also identified Vikash Yadav in connection with the alleged plot. New Delhi previously established an inquiry committee to examine information supplied by Washington about the case, while maintaining that activities contrary to its stated policies would not be tolerated.
The criminal prosecution does not itself establish the responsibility of Doval or Goel for the allegations made in Pannun’s civil complaint. Any determination of their legal position would require proceedings before the appropriate court.
The State Department’s diplomatic note also explained that jurisdictional defences, including assertions of sovereign immunity, must be raised before the US court hearing the lawsuit. It advised parties seeking to pursue such arguments to obtain legal representation in the United States.
The November 9 order requires Pannun’s proposed service package to address applicable provisions of law in India and previous efforts to deliver documents under the Hague Convention framework. Those requirements form part of the court’s consideration of the appropriate means of notifying the named defendants.
