Can an American civil court deliver legal summons to top Indian government officials through local judges sitting in New Delhi? In an unusual international legal move, a federal court in the United States has allowed exactly that process.
United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, presiding over the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted permission to Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to route his civil lawsuit to National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief Samant Goel through district courts in Delhi.
The decision brings forward rare and intricate questions regarding cross-border litigation, the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and international judicial conventions. Here is a clear look at what the order means and how the law handles foreign summons inside India.
The Background: What Is the American Lawsuit About?
Gurpatwant Singh Pannun is the general counsel of the banned organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ). In 2024, he filed a civil lawsuit in New York against several parties, including the Government of India, Ajit Doval, Samant Goel, Vikram Yadav, and Nikhil Gupta.
In his complaint, Pannun alleged that the defendants plotted to assassinate him on American soil due to his activities connected to the Khalistan movement. Before any civil court can hear a case or pass binding orders, it must ensure that the defendants receive proper formal notice. In legal terms, this is called the “service of process” or serving of summons.
Pannun told the New York court that he had repeatedly attempted to serve Doval in person during visits to the United States. However, security personnel stopped him each time. He also attempted to serve the defendants through India’s designated Central Authority at the Ministry of Law and Justice, which also did not result in service.
Earlier Attempts That the US Court Rejected
Before permitting service through Delhi courts, the US District Court had already turned down multiple alternative methods Pannun tried to use.
- Service by Email on India’s Attorney General: The court rejected delivering documents to the office of the Attorney General of India.
- Service via Lawyers: The court turned down serving paperwork to defense lawyers involved in an unrelated criminal case involving co-defendant Vikram Yadav.
- Service by Publication: Putting notice in public newspapers was not permitted as a substitute.
- Diplomatic Channels: Under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, diplomatic channels were unavailable because India entered a specific legal reservation to Article 8 of the Hague Convention.
The US State Department took no formal position on the specific request to route the summons through Indian domestic courts, leaving the matter entirely to the judge’s interpretation of cross-border civil procedure rules.
What The Law Says: The Hague Convention and Article 19
Cross-border service of court papers is primarily governed by an international treaty known as the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, signed in 1965.
India is a signatory to this treaty. Generally, under the convention, foreign court papers must be sent through the Central Authority designated by each nation. For India, that authority sits inside the Ministry of Law and Justice.
However, Article 19 of the Hague Convention offers a crucial exception. It states that to the extent the internal law of a contracting state permits methods of transmission of documents coming from abroad that are not specifically covered by the Convention, the Convention does not affect those rules. In short, if India’s domestic procedural law allows foreign courts to send summons directly to Indian judges, international law does not stop it.
How India’s Code of Civil Procedure Handles Foreign Summons
The New York federal court based its reasoning directly on India’s domestic procedural laws, specifically two provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
1. Section 29(c) of the CPC
Section 29 of the CPC explains how Indian courts may handle summons issued outside the country. Specifically, Section 29(c) allows summons issued by civil or revenue courts outside India to be sent directly to courts inside India and served as if they had originated within the Indian legal system.
However, this provision is not universal. It only applies if the Central Government of India has issued an official notification in the Official Gazette extending the benefit to that foreign jurisdiction.
The New York court noted that in January 2009, the Government of India issued a notification applying Section 29 to civil courts in countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention, which includes the United States.
2. Order V, Rule 21 of the CPC
Under the CPC, Order V deals with the issue and service of summons. Rule 21 outlines the procedure when a defendant resides within the jurisdiction of another court.
It provides that a court may send a summons directly to the local district court where the defendant actually resides or works for personal gain. That local court will then direct its own bailiff or process server to deliver the papers just like any regular domestic lawsuit.
What Happens Next in the US and Indian Courts?
The New York District Court has set a strict timeline for the procedure. Pannun was directed to present a formal proposed service packet to the court by November 30. Once approved, the Clerk of the US Court will formally transmit the documents directly to the relevant district courts in Delhi.
However, having a US court mail papers to a Delhi court does not mean an automatic legal trial will unfold smoothly against high-ranking officials. Once those documents arrive in India, several major legal hurdles remain:
- Sovereign and Official Immunity: International law recognizes sovereign immunity, which protects foreign states and government officials carrying out sovereign functions from civil liability in foreign domestic courts.
- Scrutiny by Delhi District Courts: An Indian court receiving foreign process under Section 29(c) of the CPC must verify whether the transmission meets statutory standards and public policy before ordering its bailiffs to execute service.
- Jurisdictional Challenges: Indian authorities can formally challenge whether an American civil court holds subject-matter or personal jurisdiction over sovereign government operations performed abroad.
Why This Matters For Everyday Citizens and Law Students
For law students and legal practitioners, this development provides a masterclass in private international law and comparative civil litigation. It demonstrates that the Indian Code of Civil Procedure does not operate in isolation.
Section 29(c) and the Hague Service Convention show how procedural mechanisms connect courts across oceans. At the same time, it illustrates the sharp dividing line between receiving paperwork and establishing enforceable legal jurisdiction over foreign public servants.
While the New York court has sanctioned the delivery mechanism, the substantive legal questions regarding state immunity and the jurisdiction of American civil judges over foreign national security leaders remain entirely open for challenge.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
