Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
2026 INSC 630 – Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Decided on: 09.06.2026
SERVICE LAW – BORDER SECURITY FORCE – DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE – WRIT JURISDICTION – TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS – ARTICLE 226(1) & (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION – DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS – SCOPE.
A BSF constable was dismissed from service for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without obtaining permission from the competent authority. His statutory petition was rejected. Challenging the dismissal and rejection order, he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court declined to entertain the petition applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, holding that no part of the cause of action had arisen within Delhi and that the appropriate forums were elsewhere.
Held: The Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution where the Union of India and the Director General of BSF are situated within its territorial limits. In matters relating to members of Central Armed Police Forces, the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General furnishes jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court notwithstanding that the cause of action may have arisen elsewhere. The doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot ordinarily be invoked to defeat a constitutional remedy under Article 226 when the Court otherwise possesses jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction merely on the ground that other High Courts could also entertain the matter. The writ petition was directed to be restored and decided on merits.
A. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Article 226(1) and Article 226(2) – Distinction.
Article 226(1) confers jurisdiction upon a High Court where the person or authority against whom relief is sought is located within its territorial limits.
Article 226(2) confers jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.
The two clauses operate independently and confer distinct bases of jurisdiction. A writ petition may be maintainable either because the respondent authority is situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court or because part of the cause of action has arisen therein.
B. CENTRAL ARMED POLICE FORCES – BSF – SERVICE MATTERS.
Territorial Jurisdiction – Delhi High Court.
Held: In cases involving members of the BSF and other Central Armed Police Forces, the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) because the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned force are situated in Delhi. Such jurisdiction exists even if:
- the disciplinary proceedings were conducted elsewhere;
- the dismissal order was passed outside Delhi; and
- the events constituting misconduct occurred outside Delhi.
C. FORUM NON CONVENIENS.
Applicability in Writ Proceedings.
Doctrine explained.
The doctrine applies where multiple competent forums are available and enables a court to decline jurisdiction if another forum is demonstrably more convenient and better suited to decide the dispute.
However, in proceedings under Article 226, particularly where jurisdiction is invoked under Article 226(1), the doctrine has only a limited role and should be applied sparingly. A litigant invoking a constitutional remedy before a High Court having jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be non-suited merely because another High Court may also entertain the matter.
D. PRECEDENTS – EXPLAINED AND APPLIED.
1. Abrar Ali v. CISF – Approved.
Held that the Delhi High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 226(1) where the headquarters of the concerned Central Armed Police Force are located in Delhi. The principle laid down therein was affirmed.
2. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254.
Explained. The doctrine of forum conveniens discussed therein related to situations where cause of action arises in more than one State under Article 226(2) and does not govern cases founded upon jurisdiction under Article 226(1).
3. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE.
Explained. The doctrine of forum non conveniens is applicable where multiple forums are available and a court must determine the more appropriate forum; however, the decision did not arise out of writ proceedings under Article 226.
E. HELD.
- Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1).
- Application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens by the Delhi High Court was legally unsustainable.
- Order dismissing the writ petition was set aside.
- Writ petition stood restored to the file of the Delhi High Court for decision on merits.
- Appeal against dismissal of review petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
Where the Union of India and the Director General of a Central Armed Police Force are situated within Delhi, the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) to entertain a challenge to disciplinary or termination orders passed against members of such forces, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot ordinarily be invoked to deny exercise of such constitutional jurisdiction.
Result
Civil Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court set aside. Writ Petition restored for adjudication on merits.
No comments:
Post a Comment