Supreme Court: In a matter concerning the scope of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in service matters, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., held that the Delhi High Court erred in refusing to entertain a Border Security Force (BSF) personnel’s writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Court clarified that where the Union of India and the Director General of the Central Armed Police Force are necessary parties situated in Delhi, the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1), irrespective of where the disciplinary proceedings or cause of action arose. The Court further observed that the doctrine of forum non conveniens must be applied sparingly in writ proceedings and cannot be invoked to defeat a constitutional remedy validly founded on the situs of the respondent authorities.
Background
The appellant was an enrolled member of the BSF, serving in the 44th Battalion at Narayanpur, Malda, West Bengal.
In April 2022, a complaint regarding the disappearance of a woman led to a Staff Court of Inquiry. During the inquiry, allegations surfaced that the appellant had contracted a second marriage with the woman while his first marriage was subsisting and without obtaining permission from the competent authority. It was also found that the woman herself was already married. The marriage was registered in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh on 23 May 2022.
The inquiry exonerated the appellant of allegations concerning abduction but found him guilty of entering into a second marriage in violation of Rule 7, Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (BSF Rules) and Rule 21, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (CCS (Conduct) Rules).
A show-cause notice was issued on 19 September 2022. Since no reply was submitted within the stipulated period, the Commandant, 44 Battalion, dismissed the appellant from service on 27 October 2022 under Rules 22 and 177, BSF Rules.
The appellant’s statutory petition under Rule 28-A, BSF Rules was rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu on 22 December 2023.
The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging both orders.
Issue
Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the appellant’s writ petition by applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens despite possessing territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised at the outset that although the factual background was uncomplicated, the legal issue carried wider implications for members of the BSF and other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), making a careful examination necessary.
The Court first examined its earlier decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF, Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 2012. In that case, the Court had held that the Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 226(1) because the headquarters of the CISF was located in Delhi. The Court observed that the Delhi High Court had dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. However, while reconsidering Abrar Ali, the Court noted that the Delhi High Court had in fact referred to Article 226(1) and consciously rejected jurisdiction despite the presence of the CISF headquarters in Delhi. Therefore, the Court acknowledged that the observation in Abrar Ali that the High Court had “overlooked” Article 226(1) was not entirely accurate. Nevertheless, the Court maintained that the ultimate conclusion reached in Abrar Ali was correct.
To justify this conclusion, the Court relied on the earlier three-Judge Bench decision in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, (1977) 1 SCC 484. That decision established that when a service dismissal order is challenged, the Union of India bears responsibility for implementing any order of reinstatement and is therefore a necessary party to the proceedings. Applying this principle together with Sections 4 and 5, Border Security Force Act, 1968 (BSF Act) and Rule 22, BSF Rules, the Court held that the Union of India and the Director General of BSF, both situated in New Delhi, were indispensable respondents. Since these authorities were located within Delhi, the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1), irrespective of where the disciplinary proceedings had occurred.
The Court then addressed an apparent conflict in precedent. It examined Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 SCC 456 where the Court had ruled that the mere location of an employer’s head office within a State’s territory does not automatically confer jurisdiction if the entire cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court recognised that this reasoning seemed inconsistent with Abrar Ali. However, it noted that Kalyan Banerjee had failed to consider the earlier three-Judge Bench decision in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff, (2001) 9 SCC 525, which suggested that military authorities could be sued beyond the place where the cause of action arose.
The Court ultimately harmonised the precedents by drawing a distinction between ordinary employment disputes and service matters involving members of CAPFs. It held that where the Union of India and the Director General concerned are necessary parties and their offices are situated in Delhi, the Delhi High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 226(1), even if the disciplinary action, misconduct, or termination order arose elsewhere. Consequently, CAPF personnel are entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court because the situs of these central authorities provides an independent constitutional basis for jurisdiction.
Having established that the Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction, the Court turned to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which had been relied upon by the Division Bench. Referring to Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, (2025) 9 SCC 750, the Court explained that the doctrine allows a court possessing jurisdiction to decline to exercise it where another forum is demonstrably more appropriate and convenient. However, the doctrine presupposes the existence of multiple competent forums and is generally applied to avoid inconvenience, oppression, or multiplicity of proceedings.
The Court further examined Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 where it was observed that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within a High Court’s jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction on grounds of forum convenience. However, the Court carefully clarified that Kusum Ingots concerned situations arising under Article 226(2), where jurisdiction is founded on cause of action. It did not address jurisdiction arising under Article 226(1) through the location of respondents.
Applying these principles, the Court acknowledged that several High Courts could have entertained the appellant’s petition. The Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction because the show-cause notice and termination order originated in West Bengal. The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court could have been approached because the appellant’s statutory petition had been rejected within its territorial limits. The Allahabad High Court also possessed jurisdiction because the alleged misconduct, contracting a second marriage without permission, occurred in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, multiple forums were available to the appellant.
Despite this, the Court concluded that the Delhi High Court had misapplied the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court reasoned that Article 226 expressly permits jurisdiction both on the basis of cause of action and on the basis of the location of respondents. Where jurisdiction is invoked under Article 226(1) because central authorities are situated within the court’s territory, application of the doctrine should be exceptional rather than routine. The Court emphasised that writ proceedings, particularly those seeking certiorari, require the production of official records, which are ordinarily maintained by the respondent authorities. Since those authorities were located in Delhi, the appellant had effectively chosen a forum that was convenient to the respondents themselves. Consequently, invoking forum non conveniens in such circumstances would undermine access to justice rather than promote it.
The Court therefore held that although the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction and recognised as much, it erred in declining to exercise that jurisdiction solely because other forums were also available. The doctrine of forum non conveniens could not be employed to defeat a constitutional remedy validly invoked under Article 226(1). Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, restored the appellant’s writ petition to the file of the Delhi High Court, and directed that it be decided on its merits.
[Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, — 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098, decided on 9-6-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Dipankar Datta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mahboob Alam Inayati, Adv. Mr. Furkan Ali Mirza, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kr.Chourasia, Adv. Mr. V.V.V. Pattabhi Ram, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma
