New Delhi: Govt on Tuesday dismissed a US court civil summons naming national security adviser Ajit Doval and former R&AW chief Samant Goel as a “frivolous lawsuit” driven by “fabricated and malicious” claims, asserting that designated Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun’s legal maneuvering did not hold any merit, reports Rajshekhar Jha.“…Requests for the service of judicial documents in India can only be routed through India’s designated central authority, that is, the ministry of law and justice,” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.MEA’s reaction came on reports of the US state department notifying India via a diplomatic note about a civil suit filed by SFJ member Pannun regarding an alleged plot to assassinate him.Summons served by US court said to be ‘routine, procedural step’The summons naming Doval and Goel among the defendants seeks damages for an attempt on Pannun’s life and was delivered to the Indian embassy in Washington on Oct 9. Sources described the move as a “routine, procedural step”. They said this was not the first time such a summons had been served by US courts.Former PM Manmohan Singh was served with a civil summons in 2013 in connection with a suit filed by the same outfit, SFJ, alleging human rights violations related to 1984. In 2013, a federal court in Washington DC had issued summons to Singh during his visit to Washington. Former Chinese President Jiang Zemin was also served a similar summons in 2002.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Both suits were eventually dismissed.The court order in the Pannun case came ahead of the Nov 20 sentencing of Nikhil Gupta, an Indian national arrested by the US in the matter.The state department note also clarified that the action was carried out in compliance with court instructions and does not indicate any US position on the case.“The performance of state department of its statutory functions under 28 USC (US Codes). 1608 should not be construed as an indication in any way of the US’s’ position or views on whether plaintiffs have properly complied with all statutory requirements of the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act), the status or character of a defendant, whether service was properly effected, or the merits of any claims or defenses,” it said.
