Delhi High Court Cannot Invoke Forum Non Conveniens When Writ Jurisdiction Rests on Article 226(1)

A Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma holds that forum non conveniens rarely applies where writ jurisdiction is grounded in the situs of the respondent's office under Article 226(1).

The Supreme Court has set aside a Delhi High Court order that declined to entertain a writ petition filed by a dismissed Border Security Force constable, holding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had refused to hear the petition on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits, directing the petitioner to approach a more convenient forum. The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta and decided on 9 June 2026, held that where writ jurisdiction is traceable to clause (1) of Article 226 — that is, the situs of the respondent's office — the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply. The ruling has direct consequences for enrolled members of the Central Armed Police Forces who approach the Delhi High Court on the basis of the location of their force's headquarters.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

Baksish Ahmad was enrolled in the BSF 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 — who was herself already married — on 6 May 2022, during the subsistence of his own first marriage, without obtaining the permission of the competent authority. 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.

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.

Ahmad filed a statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules seeking reinstatement. The petition was addressed to the Director General, BSF, but since Ahmad was an enrolled member, it was 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, challenging both the dismissal order and the rejection of his statutory petition. The Delhi High Court's Division Bench dismissed the petition on 10 January 2025, holding that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. A review petition was also dismissed on 29 August 2025. Ahmad approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition.

What the Delhi High Court Held

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in a short eight-paragraph order, noted that the dismissal order was issued at West Bengal and the statutory petition was rejected in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It held that the cause of action arose in West Bengal or in Jammu and Kashmir, and that the mere presence of the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi did not make the Delhi High Court the forum conveniens. Applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Division Bench declined to entertain the petition in exercise of its discretion under Article 226, while reserving liberty to Ahmad to approach the court having jurisdiction.

The Competing Precedents

Before the Supreme Court, Ahmad's counsel relied on Abrar Ali v. CISF (Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 2012), where a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court had set aside a Delhi High Court order dismissing a writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court had overlooked clause (1) of Article 226, which confers jurisdiction based on the situs of the authority against whom relief is sought. The headquarters of the Central Industrial Security Force being in Delhi, the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction was held to be clearly referable to Article 226(1).

The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, relied on Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE, a three-judge bench decision dealing with the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and argued that the Delhi High Court had correctly exercised its discretion. She also contended that the most appropriate forum was the Calcutta High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the integral and essential part of the cause of action had arisen.

The Supreme Court examined both lines of authority carefully. It noted that Abrar Ali had not considered an earlier coordinate bench decision in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456, which held that the mere location of a head office in a state does not confer jurisdiction on that state's high court, particularly when the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment. The Court acknowledged the tension between the two decisions but declined to formally resolve it, observing that “prudence dictates silence on this aspect.”

The Court also considered the three-judge bench decision in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway (1977) 1 SCC 484, which held that the Union of India bears liability for enforcement of an order quashing a dismissal from service. 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 New Delhi — were necessary parties to Ahmad's writ petition and had been duly impleaded as respondents before the Delhi High Court. The Court also noted that under sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the BSF Rules, every order of dismissal passed under sub-rule (3) must be reported to the Director General, and that there is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.

A further decision considered was Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff (2001) 9 SCC 525, where a three-judge bench had ruled that the Chief of Army Staff can be sued anywhere in the country. The Supreme Court held that this decision cannot be of any relevance after the enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which through Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008 has regulated the place of filing applications and designated the relevant bench of the Tribunal as the appropriate forum for aggrieved members of the armed forces.

The Court's Ruling on Forum Non Conveniens and Article 226

The Supreme Court identified the limited question before it as whether the Delhi High Court was right in refusing to entertain the writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens. It held that the doctrine applies only where multiple fora are available to a litigant for seeking the same remedy, and that when such multiple fora exist, the forum approached is entitled to examine whether any other forum is more convenient. However, the Court drew a sharp distinction between cases where jurisdiction is founded on clause (2) of Article 226 (cause of action) and those where it is founded on clause (1) (situs of the respondent's office).

The Court identified four fora that Ahmad could have approached: the Calcutta High Court (where the show cause notice and dismissal order were issued from Narayanpur, Malda, West Bengal); the High Court for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (where the statutory petition was rejected); the Allahabad High Court (where the second marriage was registered at Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, forming the basic ingredient of the misconduct charge); and the Delhi High Court (by virtue of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF).

The Court held that the Delhi High Court was indeed a competent fourth forum. It then turned to whether the Division Bench's refusal to exercise its discretion was justified. It found that it was not. The Court reasoned that where a suitor has himself chosen the forum convenient to the respondents — that is, the forum where the respondents' offices are located — applying forum non conveniens against that suitor would be self-defeating and likely to deny access to justice rather than advance it.

The Court stated that 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. It further observed that when a writ of or in the nature of certiorari is prayed, the records of the case would invariably be available in the offices of the respondents, or could readily be called for from the custodian. The Court also noted that the Delhi High Court's impugned order did not say that the court had no jurisdiction — it only declined to exercise that jurisdiction — which itself indicated awareness of the competence to entertain the petition.

The Court also laid down a general rule for CAPF members: where any member of the Central Armed Police Forces, including the BSF, is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction under clause (1) of Article 226 by virtue of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF or the equivalent supervising officer of the relevant CAPF — notwithstanding that the cause of action arose entirely outside Delhi's territorial limits.

Outcome

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 10 January 2025. The civil appeal was allowed. The writ petition filed by Baksish Ahmad 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.

To facilitate early disposal, the Court directed the respondents in the writ petition to file their counter affidavit within two months. Ahmad may file a rejoinder, if any, within one month thereafter.

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.

Connected applications, if any, were disposed of.