A United States judge has dismissed a court complaint against Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath for his alleged role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, saying the court has no jurisdiction over the Indian leader in the case.
New York-based 'Sikhs for Justice' had filed a complaint in a court against Nath in April 2010 and an amended complaint a year later, alleging his involvement in aiding and abetting the anti-Sikh riots that had erupted in the country following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
In a 22-page order, Judge Robert Sweet of the US District Court Southern District of New York, granted a motion moved by Nath to get the complaint filed against him by SFJ dismissed.
Sweet said: "the amended complaint as to Nath is dismissed" since SFJ did not serve the summons and its complaints to Nath in an appropriate and desired manner and neither did it fulfill its burden to establish that the New York court has jurisdiction over Nath.
SFJ had also filed a petition seeking a "default judgment" against the India's ruling Congress party for its alleged failure to defend the charges of conspiring, aiding, abetting and organising attacks on Sikhs in November 1984.
Sweet, who was to rule on the petition today, has granted the Congress party an extension of two weeks to respond to the motion for the 'default judgement.'
The next hearing in the case has been scheduled for March 29.
SFJ had said that a woman had handed a copy of the summons to an individual outside the Indian Consulate in New York in April 2010 when Nath was visiting the US.
Sweet said the summons was not served directly to Nath and a street outside the consulate is not the appropriate place to serve a legal complaint to him.
"No one handed the summons or complaint to Nath outside of the Indian Consulate... which is not Nath's place of business or dwelling or abode. Plaintiffs have thus not satisfied their burden," Sweet said.
Sweet was also not convinced with SFJ's claim that it had served the summons to Nath through some media persons during his interaction with the press at the Consulate.
"Nath's receipt of the complaint during a press conference inside the Indian Consulate does not constitute proper service under the Vienna Convention."
The judge further ruled that SFJ has failed to establish that Nath can subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York.
Meanwhile, the Congress party has named a new law firm to represent the case and attorney Thomas Lynch wrote a letter to Sweet on behalf of the party requesting adjournment of the March 15 hearing to allow him time to review the facts and prepare his response.
Sweet said in the complaint SFJ has merely stated that the court has jurisdiction over Nath as he was in New York in April 2010 and had told reporters then that he has visited the city several times in the past.
"Nath has no office in New York, no bank accounts or other property in New York, and no employees or agents in New York," Sweet said, adding that the few free days Nath did have during his official visits to the US are "insufficiently permanent or continuous to establish general jurisdiction" under New York laws.
Sweet has dismissed the complaint "without prejudice", which means SFJ can file charges afresh against Nath.
