No, that's not beach of jurisdiction. US is well within its jurisdiction to freeze Congress assets in the US. US Government will defend the interests of, and dispense justice to its citizens. In this case, they are Sikh US citizens who are victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots widely believed to be orchestrated by the Congress.
The US has no jurisdiction over what happened in India. Yes, crime was committed. It happened in India. It is under Indian law and not under US law that one may seek redressal. I am not aware that any US citizen was killed in the anti-Sikh pogrom, however, even if that is the case, it comes under Indian law.
Similarly, if an Indian citizen is a victim of any crime in the US, it comes under US law, not Indian law.
Note: The US court may be legally capable of freezing assets of any Indian political party, to do so, it has to first pass a judgement on something, in this case, the anti-Sikh pogroms. Can it pass a judgement? Technically yes, but given the circumstances, I do not know.
Nevertheless, and the point I am trying to make is, any such judgement is
not binding on India, regardless what the US court decides to do within the territories of US. There are legal provisions laid down with regards to awards handed down by foreign courts and detailed in Sections 46, 48, 49, 55, 57 and 58 of
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (
http://indiacode.nic.in/). [this also includes rules w.r.t. India being a signatory of the Geneva Conventions]
I am talking of jurisprudence, jurisdiction or judicial competence of US courts. Not to be confused with what a US court can do in the US.
There's no breach of international law there. If US wants, it can even drag Congress party to ICJ over anti-Sikh riots. Similarly, if our government and judiciary has the testicles, it can have Warren Anderson summoned to Indian courts over Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. It's well within its right to do that. Yet, to stay in the investors' good books, the government is undermining the justice of Bhopal victims.
Response is same as above. Indian law is supreme in India. Any other law, whether International or US does not take precedence over Indian law.
Just because our government lacks the will to persecute Warren Anderson, doesn't mean it can't, it doesn't even mean that US government can't go after Sonia Gandhi.
Yes, it can issue summons. That is all it can do. It cannot get him arrested unless a US court allows it. Of course, it can freeze properties owned by foreign nationals in India.
File a petition in an Indian court to find out, whether our government has the guts to freeze US citizens' properties in India. Legally, it can.
Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think I have the wherewithal to do that. I'll take your word for it.