Forum Non Conveniens Cannot Oust Delhi High Court When BSF Headquarters Grounds Jurisdiction Under Article 226(1)

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma holds that the doctrine of forum non conveniens rarely applies where writ jurisdiction is traceable to Article 226(1), restoring a dismissed BSF constable's writ petition to the Delhi High Court for decision on merits.

The Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order that declined to entertain a Border Security Force constable's writ petition on the ground that Delhi was not the forum conveniens. In a judgment dated 9 June 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that where a writ petition is maintainable under clause (1) of Article 226 — because the respondent authority's office is situated within the High Court's territorial limits — the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely be invoked to turn away the petitioner. The ruling has direct bearing on enrolled members of all Central Armed Police Forces who choose to challenge service orders before the Delhi High Court by relying on the situs of the BSF or other CAPF headquarters in the capital.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

Baksish Ahmad was enrolled in the Border Security Force on 31 December 2010 and was posted with the 44th Battalion at Narayanpur, Malda, West Bengal. In April 2022, a missing person report was received by the Company Commander concerning a woman. Ahmad and another constable were suspected of involvement in her abduction. Separately, Ahmad's wife lodged a complaint alleging that he had, against her wishes, contracted a second marriage with the same woman.

A Staff Court of Inquiry ordered by the Sector Headquarters, BSF, Malda, found that Ahmad had married the woman — herself already married — on 6 May 2022, during the subsistence of his own first marriage, without obtaining the competent authority's permission. The marriage was formally registered under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 on 23 May 2022 at Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. The inquiry exonerated Ahmad of the abduction allegation but confirmed the second marriage charge.

On 19 September 2022, Ahmad was served a show cause notice under Rules 22 and 177 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, alleging violation of Rule 7 of the BSF Rules and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He failed to reply within the stipulated fifteen days. On 27 October 2022, the Commandant, 44th Battalion, dismissed him from service without pensionary benefits under Rules 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules.

Ahmad filed a statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules addressed to the Director General, BSF. Because he was an enrolled member, the petition was correctly placed before the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu. On 22 December 2023, the Inspector General condoned the delay but rejected the petition on merits.

Ahmad then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs were located in Delhi. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction — the dismissal order having been issued in West Bengal and the statutory petition having been rejected in Jammu & Kashmir. Applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and granted liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction. A review petition was also dismissed on 29 August 2025. Ahmad then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions, from which the present civil appeals arose.

The Competing Arguments on Territorial Jurisdiction

Counsel for Ahmad argued that clause (1) of Article 226 independently confers jurisdiction on a High Court where the person or authority against whom relief is sought is situated within its territorial limits. Since the Central Government exercises overall superintendence over the BSF and the Director General, BSF has his office in Delhi, the Delhi High Court was competent to entertain the petition under clause (1), regardless of where the cause of action arose under clause (2).

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF (Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 2012), where a coordinate bench had set aside a Delhi High Court order that dismissed a CISF employee's writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the High Court had overlooked clause (1) of Article 226 since the CISF headquarters was in Delhi.

The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, countered that the cause of action had arisen entirely outside Delhi — in West Bengal and in Jammu & Kashmir — and that the mere situs of the respondents' offices in Delhi could not make it the forum conveniens. She relied on the Supreme Court's three-Judge Bench decision in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, which elaborated the doctrine of forum non conveniens and held that a court with jurisdiction may decline to exercise it where a more appropriate forum is available.

The Court's Analysis of Conflicting Precedents

The Court agreed with the outcome in Abrar Ali but offered a more careful reading of that decision. It observed that the coordinate bench in Abrar Ali had said the Delhi High Court “overlooked Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India,” but the original Delhi High Court order in that case showed that clause (1) had in fact been considered, albeit briefly. The Court declined to treat this as a reason to depart from the result in Abrar Ali.

The Court then noted a tension with Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456, where a coordinate bench had held that the mere location of an employer's head office in West Bengal did not confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court when the entire cause of action arose in Jharkhand and the head office had nothing to do with the punishment order. The Court acknowledged that Abrar Ali had not noticed Kalyan Banerjee, but chose to exercise “prudence” rather than resolve that conflict directly.

The Court also examined Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff (2001) 9 SCC 525, where a three-Judge Bench had held that the Chief of Army Staff could be sued anywhere in the country. It found that decision of limited relevance post the enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which through Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008 designated specific benches for armed forces personnel. Applying Gahtori to permit the Chief of Army Staff to be sued anywhere would re-introduce the multiplicity of fora that the AFT Act sought to eliminate.

Drawing on the three-Judge Bench decision in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway (1977) 1 SCC 484, the Court reasoned that the Union of India bears liability for enforcement of an order quashing a dismissal from service, not the officer who passed it. Read with Sections 4 and 5 of the BSF Act, this meant that the Union of India and the Director General, BSF — both having offices in Delhi — were necessary parties to Ahmad's writ petition. Additionally, sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules requires every dismissal order to be reported to the Director General, and there is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. On a cumulative assessment, the Court held that the Delhi High Court did have the competence to entertain and try the writ petition.

Why Forum Non Conveniens Was Misapplied

The Court identified four fora that could have been approached by Ahmad: the Calcutta High Court (show cause notice and dismissal order issued from Malda, West Bengal); the High Court for Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (statutory petition rejected there); the Allahabad High Court (second marriage registered in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, forming the basic ingredient of the misconduct charge); and the Delhi High Court under clause (1) of Article 226 by reason of the situs of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF.

The Delhi High Court's Division Bench had not dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction — it had applied forum non conveniens and declined to exercise its discretion. The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsound in the context of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies where multiple fora are available and the court seized of the matter may examine whether another forum is more convenient. However, “where the question of pursuing a constitutional remedy is involved and invocation of writ jurisdiction is traceable to clause (1) of Article 226, the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply.” When a writ of certiorari is sought, the records of the case are invariably available in the offices of the respondents. A petitioner who has chosen the forum convenient to the respondents — by filing before the court within whose jurisdiction the respondents' offices sit — should not be turned away on the ground that the forum is inconvenient. To do so would be self-defeating and likely to deny access to justice.

The Court also drew on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, which had observed that even where a small part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's jurisdiction, the court may in appropriate cases decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction by invoking forum conveniens. The Court read that observation as confined to situations where causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of more than one High Court — not to the situs of the respondents' offices.

The Court accordingly held that the Delhi High Court's refusal to exercise its discretion was neither legal nor proper having regard to the claim presented before it.

The Ruling for CAPF Members Generally

The Court went beyond the facts of Ahmad's case to lay down a general position. It held that any member of a Central Armed Police Force, including the BSF, who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, may invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under clause (1) of Article 226 by reason of the situs of the office of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF or the officer in whom supervision and command of the relevant CAPF is vested — even if the cause of action arose entirely outside Delhi's territorial limits.

Order

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court Division Bench and allowed the civil appeal. The appeal against the dismissal of the review petition was dismissed as not maintainable, since no appeal lies against the dismissal of a review petition.

Ahmad's writ petition stands revived on the file of the Delhi High Court and is to be considered and decided on its own merits and according to law. The respondents were granted two months to file their counter affidavit in the writ petition; Ahmad may file a rejoinder within one month thereafter. Connected applications, if any, were disposed of.