Canada’s Justice Department is asking the Federal Court to block the disclosure of what it describes as “sensitive” national security information in the upcoming murder trial of four Indian nationals accused of killing British Columbia Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2023.
In a court application filed on December 24, 2025, lawyers representing the Attorney General of Canada requested an order under the Canada Evidence Act that would prevent certain information from being made public and potentially from being shared with the defence. The government argues that releasing the material could harm international relations and threaten national security.
While court documents do not specify what evidence Ottawa is seeking to protect, the case carries significant diplomatic weight. Nijjar’s killing in Surrey, B.C., in June 2023 triggered a major rift between Canada and India after then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly alleged that Indian government agents were linked to the assassination.
India has repeatedly denied involvement.
The four accused Amandeep Singh and Karanpreet Singh, alleged to be the shooters; Karan Brar, accused of acting as the getaway driver; and Kamalpreet Singh were arrested in Alberta and Ontario in May 2024. They face charges of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The case remains in the pretrial phase and is subject to a publication ban.
Nijjar, president of Surrey’s Guru Nanak Sikh Temple and a prominent supporter of the Khalistan separatist movement, was shot dead in his pickup truck on June 18, 2023. Although India had designated him a terrorist, he faced no criminal charges in Canada and was organizing a non-binding referendum among the Sikh diaspora regarding support for Khalistan independence at the time of his death.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have previously indicated that Indian authorities allegedly used organized crime connections, including imprisoned mob figure Lawrence Bishnoi, to facilitate the killing. Neither Bishnoi nor alleged associate Goldy Brar has been charged in Canada.
Legal experts say applications to shield national security information are not uncommon in cases involving intelligence obtained from foreign partners. University of Calgary law professor Michael Nesbitt noted that the Attorney General has the authority to seek Federal Court approval to protect certain categories of information from disclosure, particularly when it involves intelligence sources, undercover operatives, or material shared by allied governments.
Leah West, a national security law expert in Ottawa, said such protections fall under what is known as national security privilege. She explained that if disclosure could expose investigative methods, intelligence personnel, or operational capabilities, the court may approve restrictions. However, she emphasized that any information that could assist the defence or point to an accused person’s innocence must still be disclosed.
Sources have previously indicated that the initial intelligence linking senior Indian officials to the plot came from intercepted communications gathered by British intelligence and shared with Canada. U.S. authorities also reportedly intercepted communications during a separate investigation into an alleged plot targeting a pro-Khalistan activist in the United States.
The case has further complicated diplomatic ties between Ottawa and New Delhi. Following Trudeau’s allegations in 2023, Canada expelled several Indian diplomats. Since taking office, Prime Minister Mark Carney has sought to stabilize relations and expand trade discussions with India a move that has drawn criticism from some Sikh advocacy groups.
The World Sikh Organization of Canada said withholding evidence related to India’s alleged involvement would amount to a denial of justice. In a statement, the group warned that concealing information could embolden further acts of intimidation and undermine public trust.
The controversy unfolds amid growing concern over transnational repression the practice of foreign governments targeting diaspora communities abroad through surveillance, intimidation, or violence. A recent report from the Montreal Institute for Global Security described such activities as an emerging threat to Canada’s democratic institutions.
For now, the Federal Court must decide whether the requested secrecy is justified. The outcome could shape not only the murder trial itself, but also the broader debate over how Canada balances transparency in its justice system with the protection of national security and international intelligence relationships.
