India–US relations: Sovereignty, Intelligence and the Long Arm of Foreign Jurisdiction
The transmission of a US civil court summons concerning the Government of India, followed by a judicial order permitting Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to pursue service of summons on India's National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, and former Research and Analysis Wing chief, Samant Goel, through Indian courts, has opened a sensitive chapter in India's engagement with international law. It deserves neither a reflexive political response nor an exaggerated interpretation. It demands legal precision, diplomatic maturity and strategic foresight.
The proceedings in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Katherine Polk Failla, concern allegations of an assassination conspiracy against Pannun on American soil in 2023. Pannun, associated with the separatist organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), has named the Government of India and several individuals as defendants. India has rejected the allegations as fabricated and malicious.
The first principle that must inform any serious assessment is simple: a summons is not a judgment, service is not proof, and an allegation is not an established fact.
The distinction that matters
Two separate procedural developments have attracted attention. The US State Department transmitted the summons and complaint concerning the Government of India to the Indian Embassy in Washington on 9 October 2026, pursuant to its statutory responsibilities under the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Separately, on 9 November, Judge Failla permitted Pannun to pursue service on Doval and Goel through designated Indian courts under the Hague Convention framework. The plaintiff has been directed to submit a proposed service packet by 30 November.
These are distinct legal routes, involving different defendants and procedural considerations. Neither establishes that the allegations are true, that the defendants are liable, or that the US executive endorses the plaintiff's case.
Indeed, the State Department expressly clarified that its transmission of documents did not represent a position on the merits, the validity of service or the availability of sovereign immunity. It also stated that it was acting in discharge of its statutory responsibilities, not as a party to the litigation.
Sovereignty is not a substitute for law
The more consequential question concerns the reach of domestic courts into matters involving a foreign sovereign and its officials.
Similarly, the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents and India's Code of Civil Procedure provide the relevant framework for international service. The court has relied on Article 19 of the Convention and Section 29(c) of the CPC, read with the relevant domestic provisions, to permit the proposed Indian-court route.
India's position, articulated by the Ministry of External Affairs, is that requests for service of judicial documents within its territory must be channelled through its designated Central Authority, the Ministry of Law and Justice. The relationship between the court's interpretation and India's stated procedural position must therefore be addressed through the treaty framework and Indian law, not through competing political assertions.
A foreign court's ability to entertain a claim, the procedure for notifying a defendant and its ultimate jurisdiction to adjudicate liability are three different questions. Conflating them would be a serious legal error.
The criminal case must not be confused with the civil case
The underlying allegations have an important, independent dimension. In November 2023, US federal prosecutors charged Indian national Nikhil Gupta in connection with an alleged murder-for-hire conspiracy targeting Pannun. Gupta pleaded guilty in February 2026 to federal charges that included murder-for-hire conspiracy and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
That development is relevant and cannot responsibly be ignored. Equally, it cannot be stretched beyond what it establishes.
The criminal proceedings against Gupta and the civil action brought by Pannun are separate legal proceedings. A guilty plea by one accused does not, by itself, establish the culpability of every person named in a related civil complaint. Nor does an allegation that an individual government employee was involved establish that the conduct was authorised by the intelligence leadership or the Government of India.
There must be an evidentiary distinction between an alleged operational participant, an alleged government functionary, the leadership of an intelligence organisation and the sovereign state itself.
This distinction is not a technicality. It is the foundation of individual criminal responsibility and state responsibility under law.
India should neither prejudge the investigation nor allow the evidentiary burden to be displaced by political rhetoric.
Intelligence is a national instrument, not an extralegal domain
The case raises a wider question for every country with an advanced intelligence establishment: how should national security operations, official immunity and individual accountability coexist in an increasingly interconnected world?
Intelligence organisations operate in environments where secrecy, deniability, source protection and strategic discretion are integral to their functioning. But confidentiality cannot become a blanket exemption from law. Equally, the exposure of intelligence personnel to untested foreign allegations cannot become an accepted instrument for compromising national security institutions.
The distinction between legitimate intelligence activity, unauthorised individual conduct and unlawful action is essential.
For India, this is particularly important as its geopolitical influence, overseas interests and security responsibilities expand. Its intelligence institutions must be protected against frivolous or politically motivated proceedings, but that protection must rest on law, demonstrable official capacity and properly established immunity, not on the mere invocation of national security.
Institutional credibility is strengthened by accountability, not diminished by it.
The geopolitical dimension: A difficult test for India-US relations
India and the United States are strategic partners with substantial common interests in the Indo-Pacific, defence technology, intelligence cooperation, counterterrorism, resilient supply chains and the evolving global balance of power.
Their partnership, however, does not imply identical legal systems, threat perceptions or interpretations of sovereignty.
The American constitutional framework protects freedom of speech and association. India's domestic legal framework has designated SFJ an unlawful association and Pannun a terrorist under its own legislation. These designations have consequences within Indian law, but they do not automatically determine his standing, rights or the merits of his claims before an American court.
Similarly, the territorial location of an alleged offence may provide a basis for American criminal jurisdiction, but it does not automatically settle the question of civil jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign or its officials.
The United States must be able to apply its laws to alleged offences on its territory. India must equally be able to invoke the protections afforded to sovereign states and their officials under international and domestic law.
These positions are not inherently incompatible.
What would be damaging is allowing a contested legal proceeding to become a proxy confrontation between two governments, particularly when their shared strategic interests are so substantial.
What India must do now
India's response must move beyond strong statements of rejection. Four parallel measures are necessary.
First, mount a technically formidable legal defence. Specialist US counsel should examine jurisdiction, statutory service requirements, sovereign immunity, individual official-capacity immunity and the sufficiency of the pleaded claims. The Government and the individual defendants require coordinated but appropriately independent representation. Every procedural deadline must be observed without prejudice to India's objections.
Second, protect national security information. Any proceedings involving intelligence officials must be managed with due regard to classified material, sources, methods and sensitive operational information. Appropriate legal safeguards must be invoked wherever disclosure is sought.
Third, pursue diplomatic engagement. New Delhi should communicate its position through established bilateral channels, distinguishing its objections to the allegations and jurisdiction from its respect for the independence of the American judiciary. Neither government should allow procedural developments to be misrepresented as an executive endorsement of contested claims.
Fourth, establish the factual record. Any credible evidence of unauthorised or unlawful conduct by an individual must be investigated through appropriate mechanisms. If the allegations against senior officials lack evidentiary support, the defence must demonstrate that through the legal process. Neither accountability nor exoneration should be based on assumption.
Beyond this lawsuit: The need for a sovereign legal doctrine
There is a larger strategic lesson which India should not overlook.
As India emerges as a consequential global power, its officials, intelligence institutions, military establishments and strategic interests will increasingly intersect with foreign legal systems. Disputes may arise over intelligence activity, counterterrorism, sanctions, human rights, commercial interests and alleged extraterritorial conduct.
India needs a coherent doctrine for protecting its sovereign interests and national security personnel in foreign jurisdictions.
Such a doctrine should clearly establish:
* The circumstances in which sovereign immunity and official immunity can be invoked.
* The distinction between state responsibility and individual responsibility.
* Protocols for responding to foreign judicial proceedings involving serving and former officials.
* Mechanisms for protecting classified information and intelligence sources.
* Procedures for international legal cooperation without compromising legitimate national security interests.
* Institutional accountability where credible evidence establishes misconduct.
This should be a standing national capability, not an improvised response to individual controversies.
The doctrine must also recognise that sovereignty carries responsibilities. A country seeking respect for its own legal protections must demonstrate equal respect for international law and the legitimate jurisdiction of other states.
The real test is institutional maturity
The Pannun litigation is not yet a judicial determination against India, its National Security Adviser or its former intelligence chief. It is a developing legal proceeding with potentially significant diplomatic and strategic consequences.
India should neither underestimate it nor elevate it into an unnecessary confrontation.
A sovereign nation does not demonstrate strength by rejecting every external legal process. Nor does it demonstrate weakness by defending its interests before a foreign court. It demonstrates maturity by knowing the limits of jurisdiction, asserting its legal rights, protecting its institutions and ensuring that accountability isnever sacrificed to expediency.
The United States must distinguish between the right to investigate alleged conduct on its territory and the separate legal requirements for exercising jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign and its officials. India must distinguish between defending its sovereignty and defending any individual against whom credible evidence of unlawful conduct may emerge.
The ultimate issue is larger than one lawsuit or the reputation of two senior officials. It concerns the principles on which India will protect its sovereignty, exercise its international responsibilities and conduct itself as a major power.
India's response must therefore be measured in the quality of its legal defence, the integrity of its investigations, the strength of its institutions and the consistency with which it upholds international law.
That is how sovereignty acquires credibility. And that is how a rising power earns enduring international respect.
[Major General Dr. Dilawar Singh, IAV, is a distinguished strategist having held senior positions in technology, defence, and corporate governance. He serves on global boards and advises on leadership, emerging technologies, and strategic affairs, with a focus on aligning India's interests in the evolving global technological order. Views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the IB Times India.]