State Responsibility Beyond Borders: Khalistan, Cross-Border Risk, and the Nikhil Gupta Case

Political Context

The case of Nikhil Gupta is significant not only as a criminal proceeding, but as a development within a long-standing political tension between those who demand for Khalistan and the Government of India. For decades, that tension has unfolded through variouos means but rarely, however, has it entered a foreign courtroom in the form of a completed prosecution. The Washington Post reported that officials in the United States and Canada have described the case as tied to what they say is “a campaign by the Indian government to kill dissidents.”

The Guilty Plea and Legal Findings

On 13 February 2026, Nikhil Gupta pleaded guilty in a United States federal court to participating in a murder-for-hire conspiracy targeting a Sikh activist residing in New York. The case was prosecuted in the Southern District of New York.

According to the indictment, Gupta arranged payment and coordination in connection with a plot to assassinate the activist, and U.S. prosecutors alleged that he acted in communication with an identified Indian government employee. The charging document also referenced the June 2023 killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada, describing communications that followed that event as part of the prosecution’s timeline to establish context and alleged intent.

Gupta’s guilty plea establishes individual criminal liability under U.S. law. It confirms participation in the conspiracy as charged, while leaving separate the broader question of institutional responsibility. The plea constitutes a judicial finding regarding Gupta’s conduct — not a formal adjudication of state policy.

Comparative International Context

There have been prior cases in the United States involving alleged foreign government targeting. In 2011, U.S. authorities disrupted a plot attributed to individuals linked to Iran to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and related prosecutions followed. More recently, U.S. courts have addressed cases involving alleged harassment and intimidation of dissidents by actors linked to foreign governments.

However, cases involving an alleged cross-border assassination plot that proceed to a guilty plea in a U.S. federal court — particularly where prosecutors allege coordination with a foreign government employee — remain relatively rare. For that reason, this case carries notable legal and diplomatic significance.

Diplomatic and Human Rights Implications

When a criminal case involves alleged actions linked to a foreign government official, the issue extends beyond domestic prosecution and enters the realm of international relations. Such cases can affect bilateral trust, intelligence cooperation, strategic dialogue, and public perceptions of adherence to international legal norms.

The extent of diplomatic impact will depend on subsequent developments, including official responses, internal reviews, and the transparency with which allegations are addressed.

From a human rights perspective, the significance of the case extends further. When allegations arise that government-linked actors may have been involved in unlawful activity on foreign soil, the matter becomes not only about punishment of an individual defendant, but about systemic safeguards and institutional accountability.r