Transnational extremism and allegations of extraterritorial action test strategic partnerships. Analyse with reference to India–US relations.

In November 2026, a US federal court allowed Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun to serve his civil suit on NSA Ajit Doval and former RAW chief Samant Goel through Indian judicial channels [1]. The case shows that extremism abroad and allegations of extraterritorial action strain the India–US partnership without breaking it.

Points of strain

• Trust deficit: The suit is linked to FBI findings of alleged Indian links to a June 2023 plot to kill Pannun in New York [1]. That is a US government record, so a political denial alone cannot settle it.
• Lawfare: Diaspora separatists use foreign civil courts to put India's top security officials under scrutiny. The US State Department served notice at the Indian Embassy in Washington [1].
• Sovereignty in legal process: India accepts foreign summons only through its Central Authority, the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Hague Service Convention route does not allow direct private service [1][2].
• Differing views on extremism: India wants Pannun on terror charges, yet he is suing Indian officials in a US court [1]. This shows the two partners treat separatists on each other's soil differently.
• Oversight gap at home: RAW has no statutory charter, so India has no law-based record of how it oversees its intelligence agencies.

Shock absorbers

• Institutional channels: The court sent service through Indian judicial channels and did not treat delivery at the embassy as enough [1]. Treaty procedures are containing the dispute.
• Separate legal tracks: This is a civil case, separate from the criminal track. The order decides only service, not the merits or immunity [1].
• Calibrated response: The MEA called the suit "frivolous" but also restated the correct legal route [1]. India paired political rejection with legal engagement.
• Shared strategic interests: Indo-Pacific security, defence and critical-technology cooperation (iCET) give both sides reasons to keep the dispute contained.

Overall, these allegations move India–US friction from diplomacy into the courts, where procedure can contain it. The way forward is for the Ministry of Law to process the request on time, for India to argue official-act immunity through counsel in the US court, and to create statutory oversight of intelligence agencies. Structured India–US counter-terrorism dialogue on diaspora extremism would also help. Together, these steps would let India uphold sovereign equality under the UN Charter while showing accountability, which is what a mature strategic partnership needs.