Fabricated & Malicious: India rejects Pannun’s lawsuit against NSA Ajit Doval, Ex-R&AW Chief
Mangalore Today News Network
New Delhi/Washington, Nov 11, 2026: India on Tuesday strongly rejected as "fabricated and malicious" the allegations against National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) chief Samant Goel in a civil lawsuit filed by Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in a US court.
India’s response came after the US State Department confirmed that it had formally conveyed the court-issued summonses to the Indian government through diplomatic channels in connection with the lawsuit.
"We reject the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials. We also reject the frivolous lawsuits. A request for serving of judicial documents in India can only be routed through India’s designated central authority, which is the Ministry of Law and Justice," External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said during a regular media briefing.
The summonses were delivered to the Indian Embassy in Washington DC through diplomatic channels by the US Department of State on October 9. According to the State Department, the diplomatic note was signed on September 30, 2026, and delivered on October 9.
Pannun, legal counsel for the banned organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), filed the lawsuit seeking damages over an alleged plot to assassinate him. He has accused Indian officials of orchestrating the alleged assassination attempt.
The SFJ is banned in India, and Pannun is wanted by Indian investigative agencies in connection with several terrorism-related charges.
In November 2023, US federal prosecutors charged Indian national Nikhil Gupta with working alongside an Indian government employee in an alleged conspiracy to assassinate Pannun in New York. The plot was reportedly foiled.
The US diplomatic note stated that the State Department had no discretion in carrying out the District Court’s request under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
It also clarified that the transmission of the summonses should not be interpreted as reflecting the US government’s position on whether the plaintiffs had complied with the statutory requirements under the FSIA, the status of the defendants, the validity of the service of summonses or the merits of the claims and defences in the case.
The note further stated that any jurisdictional or other legal defences, including claims of sovereign immunity, must be raised before the court hearing the matter. It advised the concerned parties to consult a US attorney for legal guidance.
The US government also clarified that it is not a party to the lawsuit and cannot represent any of the parties involved in the case.