India Rejects US Court Order in Pannun Case, Calls It Fabricated and Malicious

India has firmly rejected a United States court order connected to a civil lawsuit filed by Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, calling the allegations against its senior officials "fabricated and malicious" and the lawsuit itself "frivolous". The strong response came from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Tuesday, in one of the sharpest diplomatic exchanges between New Delhi and Washington in recent months.

The case concerns a procedural order issued on November 9 by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, which allowed Pannun to pursue the service of summons on National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and former Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) chief Samant Goel through Indian courts. India has made it clear that it does not accept the order or the claims behind it.

What the MEA Said

Addressing the ministry's regular media briefing in New Delhi, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal left no room for ambiguity. "We reject the fabricated and malicious attacks on our high officials. Also, we reject the frivolous lawsuits," he said.

Jaiswal also underlined a key legal point: any request for the service of judicial documents in India can only be routed through India's designated central authority, which is the Ministry of Law and Justice. In other words, New Delhi maintains that the summons cannot simply be delivered through any other channel.

What the US Court Order Actually Means

It is important to understand what the American court has — and has not — decided. The November 9 order, passed by US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is a procedural step. It permits Pannun to attempt serving the summons on Doval and Goel through Indian courts, with a deadline reported as November 30, 2026.

The order does not mean that the two officials have already been served, and it does not amount to any finding on the allegations made in the civil lawsuit. The court has not accepted Pannun's claims as fact, and no findings have been recorded against the officials named in the case.

The Background of the Case

Pannun, who heads the US-based separatist organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), filed the civil lawsuit in September 2024. He has been designated a terrorist by the Indian government. The lawsuit names the Government of India, Doval, Goel, Nikhil Gupta, Vikash Yadav and other unnamed individuals as defendants, and relates to an alleged plot to kill Pannun in New York in 2023.

The civil case is separate from the criminal case pursued by US prosecutors against Gupta, an Indian national who was arrested in the Czech Republic in 2023 and later extradited to the United States. Gupta pleaded guilty in February 2026 to charges including murder-for-hire conspiracy and conspiracy to commit money laundering. India has previously said it formed a committee to examine the concerns raised by Washington, and has described the lawsuit as "unwarranted and unsubstantiated".

Why This Matters for India-US Ties

The episode comes at a sensitive moment for the India-US relationship, with both countries engaged in trade discussions and strategic cooperation across the Indo-Pacific. While disagreements over individual legal cases have surfaced before, India's public rejection — using unusually blunt language — signals that New Delhi views the matter as an attack on its senior-most security officials rather than a routine legal dispute.

Diplomatic watchers say the coming weeks will show whether the issue stays confined to court procedure or spills into the wider relationship. For now, both sides have kept their positions clear: Washington's courts will follow their process, and New Delhi will contest every step it considers improper.

Conclusion

India's message on Tuesday was direct and deliberate: it rejects the allegations, rejects the lawsuits, and insists that any legal process must follow the proper channel through the Ministry of Law and Justice. The US court order may allow Pannun to pursue service of summons, but it settles nothing about the truth of his claims. How the matter unfolds before the November 30 deadline will be watched closely in both capitals.

What do you think — should legal disputes between countries be settled in courtrooms, or through quiet diplomacy behind closed doors? Share your view in the comments.

Sources: The Times of India, Moneycontrol, Republic World, The Tribune, Free Press Journal, Daily Pioneer, New Kerala (all reporting the MEA briefing and the November 9 US court order, 10 November 2026).