Holding

The doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied; the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(1) and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Baksish Ahmad, a Border Security Force constable, was dismissed for contracting a second marriage without permission. He filed a statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules, which was rejected, and subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ on the ground of forum non conveniens, holding that the cause of action arose outside its territorial limits. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied because Article 226(1) confers jurisdiction based on the situs of the respondents – the Union of India and the Director General of BSF, both located in Delhi – and that the Delhi High Court therefore had jurisdiction. The Court also relied on the BSF Act, relevant rules, and precedents such as Abrar Ali and Shri Ranjeet Mal to affirm that constitutional remedies under writ jurisdiction are rarely subject to forum non conveniens. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order, revived the writ petition, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens can be invoked to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition seeking constitutional relief.

Legislation cited

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007
Armed Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008s. Rule 626
Border Security Force Acts. 4, s. 5
Border Security Force Rules, 1969s. Rule 177, s. Rule 22 (sub‑rule 4), s. Rule 28A
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964s. Rule 71
Constitution of Indias. Article 226 (clause 1 and clause 2)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in refusing to entertain, try and adjudicate the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of forum non conveniens. Headnotes† Doctrine of forum non conveniens – Constitution of India – Art.226 – BSF Act – 1969 – r.22 – Doctrine of forum non conveniens, misapplication in the context of writ jurisdiction – When – Appellant-BSF Constable had contracted a second marriage without permission of the competent authority, during the subsistence of his first marriage – Dismissed

Subjects

forum non conveniensArticle 226territorial jurisdictionBorder Security ForceCentral Armed Police Forceswrit jurisdictionconstitutional remedydismissal from service

Judgment

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 220 : 2026 INSC 630

Baksish Ahmad
v.
Union of India & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 8452-53 of 2026)
09 June 2026
[Dipankar Datta* and
Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in refusing to entertain, try and
adjudicate the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of forum
non conveniens.

Headnotes†
Doctrine of forum non conveniens – Constitution of India –
Art.226 – BSF Act – ss.4, 5 – Border Security Force Rules, 1969 –
r.22 – Doctrine of forum non conveniens, misapplication in the
context of writ jurisdiction – When – Appellant-BSF Constable
had contracted a second marriage without permission of
the competent authority, during the subsistence of his first
marriage – Dismissed from service – Appellant filed statutory
petition u/r.28A of the BSF Rules seeking reinstatement in
service, rejected by Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters,
BSF, Jammu – Challenging the orders of dismissal from service
and rejection of statutory petition, appellant filed writ petition
before the Delhi High Court – Dismissed on the ground of
forum non conveniens – Review petition thereagainst also
dismissed – Challenge to:
Held: The doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied by the
Division Bench in the context of writ jurisdiction referable to Art.226 of
the Constitution – Such article permits filing of a writ petition as per
situs of office of the respondent(s) – 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 – Further, a 3-Judge Bench decision
of this Court in Shri Ranjeet Mal laid down the law that the Union of
India would be fastened with the liability for enforcement of an order
* Author
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 221

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

quashing an order of dismissal/removal from service of a railway
servant, and not the officer who passed it – This decision, read with
ss.4 and 5 of the BSF Act, makes the position clear that the Union
of India and the Director General, BSF having their offices in New
Delhi were necessary parties to the appellant’s writ petition and,
thus, had been duly impleaded as the respondents before the Delhi
High Court – Also, in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 22, BSF Rules,
every order of dismissal/removal passed under sub-rule (3) thereof
has to be reported to the Director General – There is a presumption
that official acts have been regularly performed – Hence, on a
cumulative assessment of these factors, the Delhi Court did have the
competence to entertain and try the writ petition of the appellant –
Moreover, 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, i.e., the said order was issued from
a place beyond the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court or that
the events which triggered such an order occurred outside its limits,
etc., 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 Art.226 – Impugned order set
aside – Appellant’s writ petition revived – Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules,
2017 – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Armed Forces Tribunal
Rules, 2008. [Paras 21, 27, 37, 38, 40]

Doctrine of forum non conveniens – Applicability:
Held: 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 – For informed
reasons, the forum seized of the claim may refuse to entertain
the claim and leave the said litigant free to approach the other
forum – 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
222 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

jurisdiction and having powers to grant similar relief that is more
convenient to the parties – Ordinarily, it would be the respondent
who is likely to raise an objection – By invoking the doctrine of
forum non conveniens, the respondent while conceding jurisdiction
would urge the court to decline its exercise – In a courteous tone,
the argument would be: though the court can entertain and try the
lis but it may not. [Paras 29, 36]

Constitution of India – Art.226 – BSF Act – Border Security
Force Rules, 1969 – Available fora exercising writ jurisdiction
u/Art.226, which the appellant could have approached for relief
in light of clause (2) thereof:
Held: First and foremost, the High Court at Calcutta since the show
cause notice and the order terminating the appellant’s service were
issued from Narayanpur, District Malda, West Bengal; secondly,
the High Court for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and
Ladakh, since it is within the said high court’s jurisdiction that the
appellant’s petition u/r.28A, BSF Rules came to be rejected; and
thirdly, the Allahabad High Court’s writ jurisdiction could have
also been invoked by the appellant since he married the lady
in Kushinagar, District Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, without prior
permission of the competent authority and despite subsistence
of his first marriage, which formed the basic ingredient of the
charge of misconduct – All these high courts are empowered to
grant adequate relief, if at all satisfied that a strong case on merits
has been set up – Notwithstanding that the appellant could have
approached any of the three high courts based on accrual of part
cause of action, the Delhi High Court is indeed the fourth forum
which had the competence to entertain and try the writ petition of
the appellant – The Division Bench was also conscious and hence
it did not dismiss the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction; it applied the doctrine of “forum non
conveniens” and held that the Delhi High Court was not “forum
conveniens” for either party having regard to the run of events
leading to dismissal of the appellant’s petition u/r.28A of the BSF
Rules – The refusal to exercise discretion was not legal and
proper having regard to the claim presented before the Division
Bench – The doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied
by the Division Bench in the context of writ jurisdiction referable
to Art.226 of the Constitution – Such article permits filing of a writ
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 223

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

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 Art.226,
the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply – When a
writ of or in the nature of Certiorari is prayed, Rule Nisi requires
the records of the case to be placed before the Court for examining
whether the order under challenge, which is part of the records,
deserves to be quashed or not by a writ of or in the nature of
Certiorari – Such records would invariably be available in the
offices of the respondents; if not, it can readily be called for from
the custodian thereof – A suitor having himself chosen the forum
convenient to the respondents, application of the doctrine of forum
non conveniens could be self-defeating and likely to deny access
to justice rather than advancing it. [Paras 33, 34, 37]

Case Law Cited
Abrar Ali v. CISF, Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 2012; Shri Ranjeet
Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New
Delhi [1977] 2 SCR 409 : (1977) 1 SCC 484; Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee [2008] 3 SCR 920 : (2008) 3 SCC 456;
Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff (2001) 9 SCC 525;
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 1 Supp. SCR
841 : ( 2004 ) 6 SCC 254 – referred to.
Sumit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 96 of 2017;
Sunil Kumar v. The Director General, SSB & Ors., W.P. (C) No.
3983 of 2022; Chhattar Singh v. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C)
No. 8626 of 2022 – referred to.

List of Acts
BSF Act; Border Security Force Rules, 1969; Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964; Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules,
2017; Constitution of India; Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Armed
Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008.

List of Keywords
Doctrine of forum non conveniens; Misapplication of Doctrine of
forum non conveniens in the context of writ jurisdiction; Territorial
jurisdiction of Delhi High Court; Territorial jurisdiction; Members of
224 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Central Armed Police Forces; Member of CAPF; Member of
BSF; Administrative order of termination of service; Cause of action
arose outside; Place beyond territorial limits of Delhi High Court;
Order of dismissal; Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction in
light of situs of office of the Union of India and the Director General,
BSF/the officer; Director General, BSF having offices in New Delhi
necessary parties to writ petition; Director General, BSF; Aggrieved
member of the armed forces; Delhi Court was competent to entertain
and try the writ petition; Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 8452-53
of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.01.2025, 29.08.2025 of
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 229 of 2025
and RP No. 38 of 2025, respectively

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Naresh Kumar, M. A. Inayati, Furkan Ali Mirza.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Anukalp Jain, Rajan Kr.chourasia,
Vvv Pattabhi Ram, Padmesh Mishra, Udai Khanna, Adarsh Kumar
Pandey, Arvind Kumar Sharma.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. Leave granted.

The Challenge
2. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th January,
20251 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi2 dismissing his writ

1 impugned order
2 Delhi High Court
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 225

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

petition3 as well as the order dated 29th August, 2025 of dismissal
of his review petition4.

Factual Matrix
3. The facts, relevant for deciding this appeal, are as under:
a) Appellant was enrolled as a member of the Border Security
Force5 on 31st December, 2010. At the relevant time, he was
posted in the 44th Battalion6. While serving at Narayanpur,
Malda, in West Bengal, a missing person report concerning one
xxx7 was received by the Company Commander of 44 Bn on
24th April, 2022. Appellant and another constable of the 44 Bn
were suspected to be involved in abduction of the lady. In the
meanwhile, the appellant’s wife also lodged a complaint. It was
alleged that the appellant, against her wishes, had contracted
a second marriage with the lady. It was also alleged that the
appellant subjected her to criminal force.
b) The Sector Headquarters, BSF, Malda, ordered a Staff Court of
Inquiry8 to investigate the allegations. During the inquiry, it was
found that the appellant had contracted a second marriage with
the lady, who herself was married, during the subsistence of his
first marriage on 6th May, 2022. The marriage was also formally
registered under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration
Rules, 2017 on 23rd May, 2022 at the office of the Marriage
Registration Officer in Kushinagar, District Kushinagar, Uttar
Pradesh, without obtaining the necessary permission of the
competent authority as well as without obtaining divorce from
his first wife. The SCoI confirmed that the appellant had married
a second time despite subsistence of his first marriage, without
permission; however, exonerated him of the allegations relating
to the lady’s abduction.

3 W.P. (C) No.229 of 2025
4 RP No.38 of 2025
5 BSF
6 44 Bn
7 lady
8 SCoI
226 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

c) On 19th September, 2022, the appellant was served with a show
cause notice9 under Rules 2210 and 17711 of the Border Security
Force Rules, 196912, alleging violation of Rule 713 of the BSF
Rules and Rule 2114 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 196415, on the ground that he had entered into a second

9 SCN
10 Dismissal or removal of persons other than officer on account of misconduct.- (1) When it is proposed to
terminate the service of a person subject to the Act other than an officer, he shall be given an opportunity
by the authority competent to dismiss or remove him, to show cause in the manner specified in sub-
rule (2) against such action:
Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply –
(a) where the service is terminated on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction by a
criminal Court or a Security Force Court; or
(b) where the competent authority is satisfied that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is
not expedient or reasonably practicable to give the person concerned an opportunity of showing
cause.
(2) When after considering the reports on the misconduct of the person concerned, the competent
authority is satisfied that the trial of such a person is inexpedient or impracticable, but, is of the opinion
that his further retention in the service is undesirable, it shall so inform him together with all reports
adverse to him and he shall be called upon to submit, in writing, his explanation and defence:
Provided that the competent authority may withhold from disclosure any such report or portion thereof,
if, in his opinion, its disclosure is not in the public interest.
(3) The competent authority after considering his explanation and defence if any may dismiss or remove
him from service with or without pension:
Provided that a Deputy Inspector-General shall not dismiss or remove from service, a Subordinate officer
of and above the rank of an Inspector.
(4) All cases of dismissal or removal under this rule, shall be reported to the Director-General.
11 Prescribed Officer under Section 11(2).- The Commandant may, under sub-section (2) or section 11,
dismiss or remove from the service any person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate
officer.
12 BSF Rules
13 Disqualification.- (1) No person -
(a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or
(b) who having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be
eligible for appointment into Force:
Provided that the Central Government may if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the
personal law applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage and that there are other
grounds for so doing, exempt any person from the operation of this rule.
14 21. Restriction regarding marriage.- (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage
with a person having a spouse living; and
(2) No Government servant, having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any
person:
Provided that the Central Government may permit a Government servant to enter into, or contract, any
such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2), if it is satisfied that-
(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant
and the other party to the marriage; and
(b) there are other grounds for so doing.
(3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person other than of Indian Nationality shall
forthwith intimate the fact to the Government.
15 CCS Rules
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 227

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

marriage during the subsistence of both his own marriage and
that of the lady, without permission. The SCN was served on
him at Narayanpur, District Malda, West Bengal.
d) Appellant failed to submit a reply to the SCN within the stipulated
period of fifteen days from its receipt. Consequently, by an
order dated 27th October, 2022, the Commandant, 44 Bn, in
exercise of powers conferred on him by Rules 22 and 177 of
the BSF Rules, dismissed the appellant from service without
any pensionary benefits. Appellant was, accordingly, struck-off
strength of the BSF from the said date. This order was also
served on the appellant at Narayanpur, District Malda, West
Bengal.
e) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant preferred a
statutory petition under Rule 28A16 of the BSF Rules seeking
reinstatement in service. Such petition was addressed to the
Director General, BSF. Since the appellant was an enrolled
member of the BSF, such petition should have been addressed
to the Inspector General in terms of Rule 28A. The petition
was, accordingly, placed before the Inspector General, Frontier
Headquarters, BSF, Jammu who, by his order dated 22 nd
December, 2023 condoned the delay in filing the petition but
proceeded to reject the same on merits.
f) Challenging the orders of dismissal from service and rejection
of his statutory petition, the appellant unsuccessfully invoked
the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court by filing the petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Impugned Order
4. Appellant’s contention before the Delhi High Court was that such
court did have the territorial jurisdiction because the offices of the

16 Petition.- Any person subject to the Act, who considers himself aggrieved by any order of termination
of his service passed under this Chapter may; in the case of an officer, present a petition to the Central
Government, in the case of an Assistant Sub-Inspector or a subordinate officer, present a petition to the
Director-General and in the case of an enrolled person, present a petition to the Inspector-General, who
may pass such orders on the petition as deemed fit:
Provided that the limitation period for filing such petition shall be three months from the date of order of
termination or from the date of its receipt, whichever is later.
228 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs17 were
located in Delhi.
5. The impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court is a short order spread over 8 paragraphs. We consider
it appropriate to quote the entire order, hereunder:
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for
the following relief:-
“(1) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction setting aside
the dismissal order dated 27.10.2022 passed by
the Commandant, and reinstate the petitioner
in his post with all consequential benefits and
back wages.”
2. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide
the Impugned Order dated 27.10.2022 issued by the
Commandant, 44 Bn. BSF, Narayanpur, District Malda,
West Bengal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
submitted a Statutory Petition dated 18.09.2023, under
Rule 28A of the BSF Rules, 1969, which was dismissed
by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF,
Jammu & Kashmir, vide Order dated 22.12.2023.
3. The petitioner himself is a resident of the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
4. We, therefore, enquired from the petitioner as to why
this petition has been filed before this Court. He submits
that the petition has been filed before this Court as the
office of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of
Home Affairs is situated at Delhi.
5. We do not find merit in the above submission. Merely
because the offices of the respondents are situated in
Delhi, would not make this court the forum conveniens,
especially where no part of the cause of action has arisen
within its jurisdiction.

17 Respondents
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 229

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

6. In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from
service vide Impugned Order dated 27.10.2023, which
was issued at West Bengal. The petitioner subsequently
submitted a statutory petition dated 18.09.2023, which
has been dismissed by the Inspector General, Frontier
Headquarters, BSF Jammu & Kashmir, vide Order dated
22.12.2023. Therefore, the cause of action for filing of the
petition has arisen at West Bengal or in the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir. Merely because the office of the
Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs
is situated at Delhi, it will not make this Court a forum
conveniens.
7. Applying the principle of the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, therefore, we are of the opinion that this
Court would not be the appropriate/convenient Forum for
entertaining the present petition. Accordingly, we decline to
entertain the present petition in exercise of the discretion
vested in us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The petition and the pending application are dismissed,
while reserving the liberty of the petitioner to avail of his
remedies in accordance with law before the Court having
jurisdiction.

Contentions of the Parties
6. Mr. Inayati, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended
that the Delhi High Court did have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition. In support of this submission, reliance was
first placed upon Article 226 of the Constitution. It was argued that
clause (1) of Article 226 confers jurisdiction upon a high court where
the person or authority against whom a writ, direction, or order is
sought is situated within its territorial limits, whereas clause (2) of the
said article enables a high court to exercise jurisdiction where the
cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territory. According
to him, the Central Government exercises overall superintendence
over the BSF, while its command and administration vest in the
Director General, BSF, and the offices of both the authorities are
located in Delhi. Consequently, the Delhi High Court was competent
to adjudicate the lis under clause (1) of Article 226.
230 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

7. Mr. Inayati placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in
Abrar Ali v. CISF18. He contended that the issue involved therein
was substantially similar and the decision being pat on the point,
the ratio thereof squarely applies in this case. He urged that the
appellant was entitled to similar relief in the present case.
8. Drawing our attention to several other Division Bench decisions19 of
the Delhi High Court, Mr. Inayati further contended that the decision
in Abrar Ali (supra) has been consistently followed and there was
no justification for the Division Bench hearing the appellant’s writ
petition to take a contrary view.
9. Lastly, Mr. Inayati submitted that the Delhi High Court was also
the appropriate forum conveniens for both the appellant and
the respondents, particularly in view of the proximity of the BSF
Headquarters to such court.
10. Accordingly, Mr. Inayati prayed that the Delhi High Court be directed
to hear and decide the appellant’s writ petition on merits upon setting
aside of the impugned order.
11. Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents, submitted that the impugned judgment
warrants no interference. She contended that the Delhi High Court
had correctly held that no part of the cause of action arose within its
territorial jurisdiction, - the relevant events having occurred either in
West Bengal (where the appellant was dismissed from service) or
in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (where his statutory
petition came to be rejected). It was further argued that the Delhi
High Court could not be regarded as the forum conveniens merely
because the situs of the offices of the respondents were in Delhi.
On the contrary, the most appropriate forum is the High Court at
Calcutta within whose territorial jurisdiction the integral and essential
part of the cause of action had arisen.
12. Reference was made by Ms. Bhati to the decision of this Court in
Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE where the concept
of forum non conveniens has been dealt with by a 3-Judge Bench.

18 Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 2012
19 W.P. (C) No.96 of 2017 (Sumit Kumar v. Union of India & ors.), W.P. (C) No.3983 of 2022 (Sunil Kumar v.
The Director General, SSB & ors.) and W.P. (C) No.8626 of 2022 (Chhattar Singh v. Union of India & anr.)
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 231

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

Relying on paragraphs 71, 72 and 75 of the said decision, it was
contended that the Division bench of the Delhi Court did not commit
any irregularity, far less illegality, in relegating the appellant to either
of the two high courts where part cause of action arose.
13. Ms. Bhati, accordingly, prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Analysis
14. We have heard the parties at length and examined the precedents
cited by them.
15. Although the facts and the question of law are not too complicated,
this is a case which calls for circumspection since it could affect
not only enrolled members of the BSF like the appellant but other
members of the Central Armed Police Forces20 too.
16. The limited question before us is whether the Delhi High Court was
right in refusing to entertain, try and adjudicate the writ petition of
the appellant on the ground of forum non conveniens.
17. In Abrar Ali (supra), this Court held:
“We have heard Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for
the petitioner, and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional
Solicitor General for the respondents.
2. Leave granted.
3. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been
dismissed by the Delhi High Court vide order dated May
3, 2011 by holding that no cause of action has accrued
within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. From the
impugned order, it appears that the High Court considered
the aspect of jurisdiction with reference to Article 226(2)
of the Constitution of India. We are afraid, the impugned
order cannot be sustained as the High Court overlooked
Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India. The appellant
approached Delhi High Court as the headquarter of
respondent No.1 – Central Industrial Security Force - is
located in Delhi. The jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court
in the matter is, thus, clearly referable to Article 226(1).

20 CAPF
232 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. We, accordingly, allow the Appeal and set aside the
impugned order and restore Writ Petition being Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 1241 of 2011 titled “Abrar Ali vs. C.I.S.F. & Ors.”
to the Delhi High Court for consideration in accordance of
law. No orders as to costs.”
(emphasis ours)

18. Bare perusal of paragraph 3 reveals that the coordinate Bench
proceeded to hold the order under challenge unsustainable on the
premise that the Delhi High Court overlooked clause (1) of Article 226.
19. The order under challenge in Abrar Ali (supra), however, throws light
on what was considered by the Delhi High Court. It reads as follows:
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raises
the bar of territorial jurisdiction.
2. It is not in dispute that the order dated 28.11.2000 has
been passed by the Disciplinary Authority at Dhanbad
and was conveyed to the petitioner at Dhanbad. It is also
not in dispute that Appellate order dated 01.02.2001 has
been passed at Dhanbad and conveyed to the petitioner
at his village in District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. It is also not
in dispute that the Revisional order dated 31.12.2010 has
been passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Inspector
General, CISF at Patna and has been conveyed to the
petitioner at his village in District Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
3. It is apparent that no cause of action has accrued within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Merely because the seat of the Union of India or that
the Director General, CISF is stationed at Delhi would thus
be irrelevant in view of law laid down by a Co-ordinate
Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in
Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India 2007(1) AD (Delhi) 284.
5. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition granting liberty
to the petitioner to approach the Court of competent
jurisdiction.
6. No costs.”
(underlining in original)
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 233

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

20. With due respect to the coordinate Bench which decided Abrar
Ali (supra), the observation that the Delhi High Court overlooked
clause (1) of Article 226 does not appear to be wholly correct.
Paragraph 4 of the order of the Delhi High Court, for whatever it is
worth, provides sufficient indication of consideration of clause (1) of
Article 226 in the light of an earlier decision of the same court. This
part of the order under challenge seems to have been overlooked
by this Court.
21. In any event, despite such oversight, we agree with the decision in
Abrar Ali (supra). The reason lies here. A 3-Judge Bench decision
of this Court in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern
Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi21 laid down the law that the
Union of India would be fastened with the liability for enforcement
of an order quashing an order of dismissal/removal from service of
a railway servant, and not the officer who passed it. This decision,
read with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the BSF Act, makes
the position clear that the Union of India and the Director General,
BSF having their offices in New Delhi were necessary parties to the
appellant’s writ petition and, thus, had been duly impleaded as the
respondents before the Delhi High Court. Also, we bear in mind that in
terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 22, BSF Rules, every order of dismissal/
removal passed under sub-rule (3) thereof has to be reported to
the Director General. There is a presumption that official acts have
been regularly performed. Hence, on a cumulative assessment of
these factors, there may not be any difficulty in holding that the Delhi
Court did have the competence to entertain and try the writ petition
of the appellant.
22. Significantly, the impugned order of the Division Bench does not
say that the Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction. We presume, the
Division Bench was aware of the decision in Abrar Ali (supra), though
not formally noticed, as well as the other Division Bench decisions
of the Delhi High Court which followed Abrar Ali (supra).
23. However, we find a somewhat discordant note having been struck in an
earlier decision of another coordinate Bench of this Court in Eastern
Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee22 which Abrar Ali (supra) did not

21 (1977) 1 SCC 484
22 (2008) 3 SCC 456
234 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

notice. In Kalyan Banerjee (supra), this Court dealt with a somewhat
similar situation. Although the entire cause of action for exercising the
right of action arose in Jharkhand, the order of penalty was challenged
by the employee before the High Court at Calcutta since the head
office of the employer was located in Sanctoria, Burdwan, within the
territory of West Bengal. This is what the Court held:
13. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court that the entire cause of action arose in
Mugma area within the State of Jharkhand, we are of the
opinion that only because the head office of the appellant
Company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the
same by itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the
Calcutta High Court, particularly when the head office
had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed
against the respondent.
24. A critical view of Abrar Ali (supra) could lead to the conclusion that
the decision in Kalyan Banerjee (supra) and a host of other decisions
on the point of territorial jurisdiction referred to therein not having
been considered, it has its own consequences. Prudence dictates
silence on this aspect.
25. We are, however, conscious that in Kalyan Banerjee (supra), this
Court did not notice its earlier 3-Judge Bench decision in Dinesh
Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff23. In the context of a
writ petition which was dismissed 7 (seven) years after it was filed
on the ground of cause of action having entirely arisen within the
State of Punjab including the order of penalty issued by the West
(sic, Western) Command and, therefore, the court lacked territorial
jurisdiction, this Court ruled that the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad24 should have taken into consideration that the Chief of
Army Staff can be sued anywhere in the country.
26. The decision in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori (supra) is notably silent both
on the factual matrix pleaded and the role, if any, of the Chief of Army
Staff in imposition of the order of penalty. Hence, the circumstances
leading to the conclusion that the Chief of Army Staff is amenable to

23 (2001) 9 SCC 525
24 Allahabad High Court
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 235

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

be sued across the country are difficult to discern. In any event, the
decision in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori (supra) is prior to the introduction
of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 200725 which, through Rule 626 of the
Armed Forces Tribunal Rules, 2008, has regulated the place of filing
application and designated the forum, i.e., the relevant Bench of the
Tribunal which ordinarily would proceed to hear the application. Once
such Bench of the Tribunal can be approached by an aggrieved member
of the armed forces for remedy, to hold that Dinesh Chandra Gahtori
(supra) still permits the Chief of Army Staff to be sued anywhere in the
country would re-introduce the multiplicity of forum that the AFT Act
sought to eliminate and, thereby, defeat its object. The said decision,
therefore, cannot be of any relevance post the AFT Act.
27. 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, i.e., the said order was issued from a place beyond
the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court or that the events which
triggered such an order occurred outside its limits, etc., 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.
28. Moving on to the decision in Arif Azim (supra), Ms. Bhati has relied
on certain paragraphs which need to be noted now. The same read
as under:
71. … The term “forum non conveniens” is a Latin term
which means “an inconvenient forum” and provides that a

25 AFT Act
26 Place of filing application. – (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by the applicant with the Registrar
of the Bench within whose jurisdiction -
(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or was last posted or attached; or
(ii) where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:
Provided that with the leave of the Chairperson the application may be filed with the Registrar of the
Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 14 or section 15 of the Act, such application shall
be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), a person who has ceased to be in service by
reason of his retirement, dismissal, discharge, cashiering, release, removal, resignation or termination
of service may, at his option, file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction
such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.
236 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

court which otherwise might have jurisdiction may decline
jurisdiction over a case if there is a more appropriate
forum available to the parties, and is typically invoked in
respect of cross-border subject-matters that are amenable
to multiple concurrent jurisdictions. Depending upon the
nature of the dispute, the subject-matter involved and
the parties thereto, the courts by invoking this doctrine
proceed to determine which one of the available forums
may be more convenient and fair for entertaining and
adjudicating the matter.
72. In order to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens
an adequate alternative forum must exist where the
subject-matter may be espoused. The alternative forum
must be capable of providing a fair and adequate remedy
for the dispute, however this does not mean that the
alternative forum must offer identical remedies, and this
doctrine may be applied as long as the other alternative
forum offers a reasonably fair process of remedy and is
more convenient or appropriate in the opinion of the court
invoking the doctrine. Courts in doing so must weigh the
relative importance of private and public interest factors.
In doing so, they exercise a high level of discretion and
often issue rulings that are fact specific.
***
75. What can be discerned from the above is that where
more than one forum is available, it is the discretion of the
court to entertain the matter by examining as to which is
the appropriate forum more suited for the interests of all
the parties and the ends of justice. Ordinarily, the burden
to prove that the court or forum in seisin of the matter
is an inconvenient forum or the proceedings therein are
oppressive or vexatious lies on the party contending the
same, yet the choice of forum by the other party is not
decisive, and that it is for the court to determine whether
the proceedings before it might be an inconvenience to
the interests of the parties or less appropriate for the
subject-matter in question.
29. What follows from the above passages is that the doctrine of forum
non conveniens applies only where multiple fora are available to a
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 237

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

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. For informed reasons, the forum seized
of the claim may refuse to entertain the claim and leave the said
litigant free to approach the other forum. It is, however, noticed that
the decision in Arif Azim (supra) did not arise from writ proceedings.
30. We may, in this connection, also profitably refer to the 3-Judge Bench
decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India27. The
proposition of law, which is of importance for deciding this appeal,
reads as under:
30. … even if a small part of cause of action arises within
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by
itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor
compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit.
In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of
forum conveniens.
(emphasis ours)

31. Therefore, in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), an observation
as to the applicability of the doctrine of forum non conveniens was
made where causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of more
than one high court, and not in relation to the situs of office of the
respondent(s).
32. What then are the available fora exercising writ jurisdiction under
Article 226, which the appellant could have approached for relief in
light of clause (2) thereof?
33. First and foremost, the High Court at Calcutta since the SCN and
the order terminating the appellant’s service were issued from
Narayanpur, District Malda, West Bengal; secondly, the High Court
for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, since it is
within the said high court’s jurisdiction that the appellant’s petition
under Rule 28A, BSF Rules came to be rejected; and thirdly,

27 (2004) 6 SCC 254
238 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Allahabad High Court’s writ jurisdiction could have also been
invoked by the appellant since he married the lady in Kushinagar,
District Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, without prior permission of the
competent authority and despite subsistence of his first marriage,
which formed the basic ingredient of the charge of misconduct. All
these high courts are empowered to grant adequate relief, if at all
satisfied that a strong case on merits has been set up.
34. Notwithstanding that the appellant could have approached any of
the three high courts based on accrual of part cause of action, as
observed earlier, the Delhi High Court is indeed the fourth forum
which had the competence to entertain and try the writ petition of
the appellant. The Division Bench was also conscious and hence it
did not dismiss the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction; it applied the doctrine of “forum non conveniens”
and held that the Delhi High Court was not “forum conveniens” for
either party having regard to the run of events leading to dismissal
of the appellant’s petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules.
35. It is in the conspectus of the above fact situation that we need to
examine whether the approach of the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens to non-
suit the appellant was justified and acceptable. It is obvious from a
reading of the impugned order that discretion was not exercised in
favour of the appellant because it was felt that the other high courts
provided a more convenient forum for the appellant to approach.
However, for the reason that follows, we do not find the refusal to
exercise discretion to be legal and proper having regard to the claim
presented before the Division Bench.
36. 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. Ordinarily, it would be the respondent who is likely to raise
an objection. By invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
the respondent while conceding jurisdiction would urge the court to
decline its exercise. In a courteous tone, the argument would be :
though the court can entertain and try the lis but it may not.
37. In our considered opinion, the doctrine of forum non conveniens
has been misapplied by the Division Bench in the context of writ
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 239

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

jurisdiction referable to Article 226 of the Constitution. 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. When a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari is prayed, Rule
Nisi requires the records of the case to be placed before the Court
for examining whether the order under challenge, which is part of
the records, deserves to be quashed or not by a writ of or in the
nature of Certiorari. Such records would invariably be available in
the offices of the respondents28; if not, it can readily be called for
from the custodian thereof. A suitor having himself chosen the forum
convenient to the respondents, application of the doctrine of forum
non conveniens could be self-defeating and likely to deny access
to justice rather than advancing it.
38. For the foregoing reason, the impugned order merits interference; the
same is set aside. The appeal thereagainst succeeds and is allowed.
39. Since no appeal lies against dismissal of a review petition, the appeal
against the order of dismissal of the review petition is dismissed as
not maintainable.
40. This order results in revival of the appellant’s writ petition on the
file of the Delhi High Court. The same may now be considered and
decided on its own merits and according to law. For facilitating early
disposal thereof, we grant the respondents in the writ petition two
months’ time to file their counter affidavit; rejoinder thereto, if any,
may be filed by the appellant by a month thereafter.
41. Connected applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

28 see, for this case, sub-rule (4) of Rule 22, BSF Rules