The Supreme Court recently held that the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear service-related challenges brought by personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) including the Border Security Force (BSF) even if the cause of action arose outside Delhi [Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India].

The Court passed the ruling while hearing an appeal filed by a dismissed BSF constable challenging a Delhi High Court order that had declined to entertain his petition on the ground of forum non conveniens - a legal principle that allows a court to decline to hear a case where another forum is considered more appropriate.

In a judgment delivered on June 9, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the High Court's order.

The Bench held that the doctrine had been wrongly applied by the High Court. It observed that since the offices of the Union government and the Director General/commanding authority of the concerned CAPF are located in Delhi, the High Court would have jurisdiction to hear such petitions under Article 226(1) of the Constitution.

The Court explained that Article 226(1) permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the location of the respondent authority, independent of where the cause of action arose.

It further went on to clarify that where a litigant invokes the writ jurisdiction of a High Court on this basis, the doctrine of forum non conveniens would rarely apply.

"Be that as it may, to reconcile the conflict, if any, we hold that in case any member of the CAPF, and that includes the BSF, is aggrieved by any administrative order of termination of his service issued by the competent authority, notwithstanding that the cause of action arose outside ... still the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in light of situs of office of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF/the officer in whom is vested supervision and command of the other CAPF, as per clause (1) of Article 226," the apex court held.

Baksish Ahmad was serving as a constable in the BSF and was posted in West Bengal when allegations surfaced that he had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting.

A Staff Court of Inquiry ordered by the BSF found that Ahmad had contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of his own first marriage and the woman's marriage. The marriage was subsequently registered in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh without obtaining permission from the competent authority and without securing a divorce from his first wife.

Following the inquiry, the BSF issued a show-cause notice to him. However, he failed to submit a reply within the stipulated period. Consequently, on October 27, 2022, the Commandant of the 44 Battalion dismissed him from service without pensionary benefits.

After his statutory petition was rejected by the Inspector General of BSF at Jammu and Kashmir, Ahmad challenged both orders before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court, however, declined to entertain the plea. It noted that the dismissal order had been passed in West Bengal while the statutory petition had been decided in Jammu and Kashmir. Hence, it held that Delhi High Court was not the appropriate forum to hear the case.

Aggrieved by this, Ahmad approached the Supreme Court.

Before the top court, Ahmad argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter since the offices of the Director General of BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are situated in Delhi.

The Union government maintained that the High Court had rightly declined to entertain the petition as the relevant events had taken place outside Delhi.

The Supreme Court noted that the central issue before it was whether the Delhi High Court was justified in refusing to entertain Ahmad's writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF where it had held that the Delhi High Court could exercise jurisdiction since the headquarters of the concerned force was located in Delhi.

Thus, the Bench observed that the Delhi High Court would have jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution because the Union government and the Director General of the BSF are based in Delhi.

While acknowledging that other High Courts may also have had jurisdiction because parts of the cause of action arose there, the Court held that this did not take away the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction.

It consequently held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens had been wrongly applied and restored Ahmad's writ petition for consideration on merits.

Advocate Mahboob Alam Inayat along with advocates Furkan Ali Mirza and Naresh Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati along with advocates Anukalp Jain, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, VVV Pattabhi Ram, Padmesh Mishra, Udai Khanna, Adarsh Kumar Pandey and Arvind Kumar Sharma appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]