On
April 18, US Federal Judge Robert Sweet heard on submission a motion filed
by November 1984 Victims' requesting the court to vacate its earlier order
dismissing the case against Kamal Nath and re-instating the same.
The victims motion to reinstate the case
argues that survivors of November 1984 Sikh Genocide, as a matter of law,
has a right to conduct jurisdictional discovery to uncover Kamal Nath's
contacts with New York to establish court's personal jurisdiction in this
class action lawsuit filed under Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and Torture
Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The case against Minister Nath was filed by
"Sikhs For Justice" (SFJ) a US based human rights group for his role in
leading an armed mob which attacked Gurdawara Rakab Ganj Delhi on November
01, 1984 in which many Sikhs were burnt alive.
On March 06, Judge Sweet dismissed the
complaint against Congress Leader Kamal Nath on the grounds that summons
were not properly served upon Minister Nath and that plaintiffs failed to
show that Minister Nath had "minimum contacts" with New York sufficient to
support court's personal jurisdiction over the case.
The SFJ's' motion to reinstate the case
against Kamal Nath is based on the evidence that Minister Nath entered into
a book deal with New York City publishing giant McGraw-Hill Inc. which
published Nath's book "India's Century" in the United States in 2007.
Additionally motion also points to news reports about Nath publically
acknowledged the receipt of summons on April 06, 2010 while he was in New
York to attend a construction conference organized by McGraw Hill Inc. The
motion contends that the court abused its discretion by ordering dismissal
of complaint against Nath without first affording victims of November 1984 a
jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing in order to prove the
court that personal jurisdiction exists over Minister Nath.
In opposition to plaintiffs' motion, Kamal
Nath through his attorney David Lindley, states that plaintiffs have "failed
to state a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction, such as might warrant
jurisdictional discovery, particularly considering Minister Nath's multiple
immunity defenses."
According to Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal
advisor to SFJ, since service of summons and personal jurisdiction are
issues in this case, plaintiffs will again serve Kamal Nath in India through
the procedure provided under "Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters" (Hague Service
Convention 1965"). The Hague Service Convention is a multilateral treaty
which allows service of process of judicial documents from one signatory
state to another without use of consular and diplomatic channels. India
signed the Hague Service Convention on November 23, 2006 and established a
Central Authority for receiving and serving judicial documents from courts
in foreign countries, added attorney Pannun.