Sikh group to challenge ruling in Court of Appeals
A US court has dismissed a lawsuit against the Congress over the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, holding that the Sikh group which brought up the case failed to show sufficient “touch and concern” to the United States as required for the exercise of jurisdiction.
The New York-based Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), however, said it would challenge the dismissal in the US Court of Appeals within 30 days as provided under the federal rules of civil procedure.
In his ruling, Judge Robert W. Sweet of US District Court for the Southern District of New York held that “plaintiffs’ combined facts, even if credited, are insufficient to establish that the conduct sufficiently ‘touched and concerned’ the US to establish jurisdiction under the ATS (Alien Torts Statute) and dismissal is appropriate under 12(b)( 1)”.
While dismissing the lawsuit, the judge barred SFJ from filing any additional amendment of the complaint. Reacting to the ruling, the SFJ asserted that the case sufficiently “touches and concerns” the US and that as a rights group, it has “institutional standing” to seek “declaratory judgment” on the 1984 riots.
In the appeals court, the group proposes to argue that the requirement of “touch and concern” is also met by the fact that the Congress Party commands, controls and directs the functioning of the New York-based Indian National Overseas Congress.
Besides the case against the Congress Party, the SFJ has filed separate lawsuits against Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that are before different courts in New York and Washington. last week, a Washington court had set a deadline for SFJ, asking it to serve summons on Singh by June 18 or face dismissal of its case of alleged violation of human rights against him.
Welcoming the dismissal of the case, Attorney Ravi Batra, representing the Congress Party, said the US Supreme Court has established the precedent that events occurring entirely on foreign soil and between foreigners, without touching or concerning the US, would not be heard in US courts.