Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 9 June 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 630
The Delhi High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226(1) over termination orders of CAPF members because the Union and the Director General are in Delhi, and wrongly declined a BSF constable's writ petition as forum non conveniens.
Facts
The appellant, a BSF constable posted at Narayanpur, Malda, West Bengal, was found by a Staff Court of Inquiry to have contracted a second marriage, registered in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, without permission and during the subsistence of his first marriage. After a show cause notice under Rules 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules, 1969, to which he did not reply, the Commandant dismissed him from service on 27 October 2022 at Narayanpur. His statutory petition under Rule 28A was rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu. He filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, relying on the location of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi. A Division Bench declined to entertain it, holding Delhi was not the forum conveniens as the cause of action arose in West Bengal or Jammu and Kashmir. His review petition was also dismissed.
Questions before the Court
- Does the Delhi High Court have territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) over a writ petition by a CAPF member against termination of service ordered outside Delhi?
- Was the Delhi High Court right in refusing to entertain the writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens?
What the Court held
- Where a member of a CAPF, including the BSF, challenges an administrative order terminating his service, the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General, even though the order was issued and the cause of action arose outside Delhi.
- The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where several fora are available for the same remedy; the court approached may then examine whether another forum is more convenient and refuse to entertain the claim for informed reasons.
- Where writ jurisdiction is invoked under Article 226(1), the doctrine may rarely apply. The records would be with the respondents, and applying the doctrine against a suitor who chose the forum convenient to the respondents could be self-defeating and likely to deny access to justice. The Division Bench misapplied the doctrine.
- The impugned order was set aside and the writ petition revived for decision on merits; the appeal against dismissal of the review petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Why it matters
The judgment reconciles earlier decisions on writ jurisdiction over CAPF service disputes, agreeing with Abrar Ali v. CISF and holding that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226(1) in termination cases. It also limits the use of forum non conveniens in writ proceedings founded on the situs of the respondent's office, and holds that Dinesh Chandra Gahtori has no relevance after the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“What follows from the above passages is that the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where multiple fora are available to a litigant for seeking the same remedy; and, when such multiple fora are available, the forum which has been approached is entitled in law to examine whether any other forum is more convenient and/or better suited to consider and decide the claim that has been raised by the aggrieved litigant.”
“The core idea of forum non conveniens is that although the court which has been approached by the suitor can legally entertain and try his case, the said court may refuse to do so and require the suitor to approach an appropriate court exercising similar jurisdiction and having powers to grant similar relief that is more convenient to the parties.”
“Such article permits filing of a writ petition as per situs of office of the respondent(s) [clause (1)] and cause of action [clause (2)] which gives the right of action. 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.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 226, Constitution
- Rule 22, Border Security Force Rules, 1969
Case and bench
- Parties
- Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856 of 2026)
- Decided
- 9 June 2026
- Bench
- Dipankar Datta, Satish Chandra Sharma
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment by Dipankar Datta, J., signed by both Judges.