India on Tuesday 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 over an alleged plot to assassinate him.
The response came after the US State Department confirmed that it had served summonses issued by the court on the Indian side through diplomatic channels in connection with the case.
"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, that is, the Ministry of Law and Justice," External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said at a regular media briefing.
According to the US State Department, the summonses were delivered to the Indian Embassy in Washington DC on October 9 through diplomatic channels. The diplomatic note accompanying them was signed on September 30, 2026.
The lawsuit was filed by Pannun, legal counsel for the banned organisation Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), seeking damages over an alleged conspiracy to assassinate him in the United States. He has accused Indian officials, including Doval and Goel, of orchestrating the plot.
Pannun is wanted by Indian probe agencies in connection with various terror-related charges. The SFJ is banned in India.
In November 2023, US federal prosecutors charged Indian national Nikhil Gupta with working with an Indian government employee in an alleged plot to kill Pannun in New York. The alleged assassination attempt was foiled.
The US diplomatic note said 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 did not indicate the US government's position on whether the plaintiffs had complied with the statutory requirements of the FSIA, the status or character of the defendants, the validity of the service or the merits of the claims and defences.
The note further stated that any jurisdictional or other defence, including claims of sovereign immunity, would have to be raised before the court hearing the case. It advised the Indian side to consult a US attorney in this regard.
The US government also clarified that it was not a party to the lawsuit and could not represent any of the parties involved.
(With inputs from PTI)