Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court

"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," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions against the Union of India and the Director General of the Border Security Force (BSF) based on the situs of their offices.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied by the High Court to "non-suit" a litigant who had approached a forum that was inherently convenient to the respondents.

The case involved an enrolled member of the BSF who was dismissed from service in West Bengal for contracting a second marriage without permission. After his statutory petition was rejected by the Inspector General in Jammu, he approached the Delhi High Court, which dismissed his plea on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The High Court had relegated him to approach either the Calcutta High Court or the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Primary Question Before The Court

The primary question before the court was whether the Delhi High Court was right in refusing to adjudicate the writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens despite having jurisdiction under Article 226(1). The court also examined the interplay between the situs of the respondent's office and the accrual of the cause of action in determining the appropriate forum.

Distinction Between Article 226(1) And 226(2) Of The Constitution

The Supreme Court clarified that Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides two distinct bases for a High Court to exercise jurisdiction. Clause (1) confers jurisdiction based on the location of the person or authority against whom the writ is sought, while clause (2) enables jurisdiction where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part.

Situs Of Respondents’ Offices Provides Valid Jurisdiction

The bench noted that the Union of India and the Director General of the BSF have their offices in New Delhi, making the Delhi High Court a competent forum under Article 226(1). The court emphasized that even if the entire cause of action arose outside Delhi, the presence of the head offices of the respondents within its territory provides the High Court with the legal competence to entertain the lis.

Union Of India And BSF Director General Are Necessary Parties

Referring to the three-judge bench decision in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway (1977), the court observed that the Union of India is a necessary party to such proceedings as it is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of any order quashing a dismissal. Since the BSF Act and Rules require dismissal orders to be reported to the Director General in Delhi, these authorities were properly impleaded.

Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens Misapplied In Writ Jurisdiction

The Court held that the Delhi High Court erred in invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline the exercise of its discretion. It observed that the doctrine applies when multiple fora are available, and the court seized of the matter must determine which is better suited. However, when a petitioner chooses a forum where the respondents are situated, the plea of "inconvenience" by the respondent carries little weight.

Court Explains Why Delhi Is A Convenient Forum For Respondents

The bench pointed out that in cases where a writ of Certiorari is prayed for, the court requires the records of the case to be produced for examination. Since the head offices of the BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are in Delhi, these records are invariably available there or can be easily summoned. Therefore, the forum chosen by the petitioner was actually convenient for the respondents.

"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."

Reconciling Conflicts In Precedents Regarding Chief Of Army Staff

The court also addressed the conflict between Abrar Ali v. CISF and Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee. While distinguishing the latter as a case involving a company rather than the Government, the court also noted that the decision in Dinesh Chandra Gahtori regarding the Chief of Army Staff being suable anywhere has lost relevance following the enactment of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Final Directions And Restoration Of Petition

The Supreme Court concluded that the Delhi High Court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction was neither legal nor proper. It set aside the impugned order and revived the appellant’s writ petition on the file of the Delhi High Court. The respondents were granted two months to file their counter-affidavit, with instructions for the High Court to decide the matter on its merits.

This judgment reinforces that the constitutional right to approach a High Court under Article 226(1) based on the location of the respondent cannot be easily brushed aside by invoking procedural doctrines. By clarifying that forum non conveniens should rarely apply when the respondent’s headquarters are within the court’s territory, the Supreme Court has ensured greater access to justice for personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces.

Date of Decision: June 09, 2026