The Supreme Court has held that the Delhi High Court cannot refuse to entertain a writ petition merely by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens when jurisdiction is otherwise available under Article 226(1) of the Constitution.
The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dismissing a BSF constable’s writ petition and directed the High Court to decide the matter on merits.
The appellant, Baksish Ahmad, was enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) in December 2010 and was serving with the 44th Battalion in West Bengal. In 2022, allegations surfaced that he had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting and without obtaining the required permission from the competent authority.
A Staff Court of Inquiry conducted by the BSF found that Ahmad had entered into a second marriage with a woman who was herself married, and had registered the marriage in Uttar Pradesh without obtaining divorce from his first wife or prior approval from BSF authorities. However, he was cleared of allegations relating to the alleged abduction of the woman.
Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued under the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, alleging violation of service conduct provisions relating to marriage. After Ahmad failed to submit a reply within the stipulated period, the Commandant of the 44th Battalion dismissed him from service in October 2022 without pensionary benefits.
Statutory Petition and Delhi High Court Proceedings
The dismissed BSF personnel challenged the termination by filing a statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules. Although addressed to the Director General, BSF, the petition was eventually considered and rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, Jammu and Kashmir.
Aggrieved by both orders, Ahmad approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He argued that the Court possessed jurisdiction because both the Director General, BSF, and the Ministry of Home Affairs are headquartered in Delhi.
The Delhi High Court, however, declined to entertain the writ petition. It held that the dismissal order was issued in West Bengal and the statutory petition was rejected in Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, according to the High Court, the cause of action arose outside Delhi, making Delhi an inappropriate forum. Applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court dismissed the petition while granting liberty to approach another competent High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the principal question was whether the Delhi High Court was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction despite the presence of central authorities in Delhi.
The appellant relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF, where it had been held that the Delhi High Court could entertain a writ petition because the headquarters of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) was located in Delhi.
The Union Government, on the other hand, argued that the real cause of action arose in West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir and that those jurisdictions provided more appropriate forums for adjudication.
The Supreme Court agreed that the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution because the Union of India and the Director General of the BSF, both necessary parties to the litigation, are situated in Delhi. The Court noted that every dismissal order under the BSF Rules must be reported to the Director General, thereby establishing a sufficient nexus with Delhi.
The Bench further clarified that CAPF personnel challenging administrative orders of dismissal can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court even when the impugned order was passed elsewhere and the events leading to the disciplinary action occurred outside Delhi.
A major aspect of the judgment concerns the limits of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in constitutional litigation.
The Supreme Court explained that the doctrine is generally invoked where multiple forums are available and one forum is demonstrably more convenient. However, the Court cautioned that the doctrine should be sparingly applied in writ proceedings under Article 226, particularly when jurisdiction is founded on the location of governmental authorities.
The Bench observed that a litigant who chooses to file a petition where the respondent authorities are situated cannot ordinarily be denied access to justice by being compelled to approach another court merely because some part of the cause of action arose elsewhere. The Court emphasized that applying the doctrine too broadly in writ proceedings could undermine constitutional remedies rather than facilitate them.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant could potentially have approached multiple High Courts. The Calcutta High Court, where the show-cause notice and dismissal order were issued. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, where the statutory petition was rejected. The Allahabad High Court, since the alleged second marriage was registered in Uttar Pradesh. The Delhi High Court, because the Union of India and the Director General, BSF are located in Delhi.
Nevertheless, the availability of alternative forums did not justify rejection of the petition by the Delhi High Court once jurisdiction was otherwise established.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order and restored Ahmad’s writ petition for adjudication on merits. The Court directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavit within two months and granted the petitioner one additional month thereafter to file a rejoinder.
However, the Court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the review petition, holding that no appeal lies against an order refusing review.
Case Details
Case Title: Baksish Ahmad Versus Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1570-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856 OF 2026
Date: 09/06/2026
