Examine the role of international conventions on service of judicial documents in balancing judicial cooperation with sovereign immunity.

Service of process means formally delivering court papers to a defendant. A court generally cannot proceed until service is complete [2]. The Hague Service Convention sets the agreed rules for sending such papers across borders. It supports judicial cooperation between states. It does not settle whether a foreign state's officials can be sued. Pannun's civil suit against NSA Ajit Doval in a U.S. court shows this gap [1].

Role in enabling judicial cooperation

• Central Authority mechanism: each member state names one office to receive foreign requests. For India this is the Ministry of Law and Justice [3][1].
• Predictability and reciprocity: all members use the same treaty channel. Litigants know how papers must travel, and no state invents a special rule for one case.
• Due process: defendants are formally notified, so judgments are fair and can later be enforced across borders.

Role in protecting sovereignty

• Control over the entry route: India accepts foreign summons only indirectly, through the proper authority. A private judicial officer cannot serve papers directly on defendants in India [2].
• The Pannun case: the U.S. State Department said it had served the notice at the Indian Embassy in Washington. Even so, Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed that service go through Indian judicial channels [1]. The MEA called the suit "frivolous" but restated that the Ministry of Law route is the only lawful one [1].

Limits of the balance

• Service is not immunity: the order allowed service only. It did not decide jurisdiction or whether serving or former officials have functional immunity for official acts [1].
• Gaps in immunity law: the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States (2004) has not yet entered into force [4]. So immunity questions are left to each country's courts.
• Lawfare and delay: separatists can use foreign courts to put pressure on Indian officials. When the accused state controls the only delivery route, slow processing can look like avoiding the court.

Way forward

• Time-bound processing by the Central Authority, with a clear record of each request.
• Keep the MEA's political rebuttal separate from legal defence argued by counsel in court.
• Build statutory oversight of intelligence agencies, so that foreign courts have less reason to step in.

Service conventions are useful because they handle procedure without deciding the merits. They protect sovereign control over how foreign papers arrive while keeping the court process open. India can best keep this balance by processing requests promptly and arguing immunity openly in court. That fits the sovereign equality principle of the UN Charter and the rule of law.