WhatsApp Channel Join Now
Telegram Group Join Now
Relevance: GS-II (International Relations) | GS-III (Internal Security) | Source: U.S. The Hindu
Why India Rejected the U.S. Court Summons in the Pannun Lawsuit ?
The Context: A U.S. federal court in New York has issued civil summons to India’s Union Home Office, National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval, and former R&AW chief Samant Goel on a lawsuit filed by Khalistani extremist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun over an alleged plot to kill him. India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) firmly rejected the summons as “completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated.”
1. What Is the Issue & Why India Rejected It
- A Terrorist Under Indian Law: Pannun heads the banned group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) and was officially declared an “individual terrorist” by India in 2020 under the UAPA, 1967 for promoting secession and violence against India.
- Civil Case vs. Government Action: In the U.S. legal system, any private individual can file a civil lawsuit for damages, and courts routinely issue automatic summons. It does not mean the U.S. government has found the named Indian officials guilty.
- High-Level Probe Already Active: Unlike Canada (which made public allegations without sharing proof), the U.S. shared security inputs with New Delhi, and India formed a High-Level Enquiry Committee in November 2023 to investigate the matter seriously.
2. Key International Laws
- Sovereign Immunity: Under customary international law (par in parem non habet imperium—equals have no authority over one another), one country’s domestic courts cannot put another sovereign nation or its top serving officials on trial for official state acts.
- Hague Service Convention (1965): Cross-border court summons between countries must go through the Ministry of Law and Justice (India’s Central Authority). Under Article 13, a country can legally refuse to serve any foreign summons that violates its sovereignty or national security.
Practice MCQ
Q. Consider the following statements regarding India’s security laws and international legal conventions:
- Following the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, the Union Government can designate both organizations and individuals as terrorists.
- Under the Hague Service Convention (1965), a member country is legally bound to serve all foreign judicial summons even if they infringe upon its sovereignty or security.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: (a) 1 only
Hint: Statement 1 is correct; the 2019 UAPA amendment added the Fourth Schedule to designate individuals as terrorists. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention explicitly allows a state to refuse service of a foreign summons if it considers that doing so would prejudice its sovereignty or security.
Hint: Statement 1 is correct; the 2019 UAPA amendment added the Fourth Schedule to designate individuals as terrorists. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 13 of the Hague Service Convention explicitly allows a state to refuse service of a foreign summons if it considers that doing so would prejudice its sovereignty or security.
Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success
Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.