Delhi High Court Possesses Jurisdiction But Not Forum Conveniens: Writ Against Preventive Detention Dismissed

“Even if a minuscule part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, the High Court may refuse to exercise writ powers where another forum is more appropriate.” - In a significant decision Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), on the ground that the Delhi High Court, though having jurisdiction, was not the forum conveniens for adjudicating the dispute. The bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach a more appropriate forum, either the Calcutta High Court or the Rajasthan High Court.

The matter arose from a writ of certiorari and habeas corpus filed by Mr. Gautam Mondal, through his wife, seeking quashing of a detention order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of India, as well as subsequent memoranda rejecting his representations against the detention.

“Jurisdiction and Exercise of Jurisdiction are Distinct – Doctrine of Forum Conveniens Permits Judicial Restraint”

The Court opened its analysis with the core observation that although the detention order was issued from Delhi and thus a part of the cause of action did arise within its territory, the doctrine of forum conveniens warranted judicial restraint. The Court held:

“The objection raised is not to the existence of jurisdiction, but to the exercise thereof... Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction, the Court may decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction if another forum is more convenient.” [Para 9]

The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court primarily on the ground that the impugned detention order and memoranda rejecting his representations were passed from Delhi. The respondents (Union of India and Department of Revenue), however, raised a preliminary objection, contending that all predicate criminal cases, the sponsoring authority (NCB Kolkata), and the relevant records were located in West Bengal, while the petitioner was detained in Rajasthan.

The Court agreed with this objection, stating that merely because the detention order was passed in Delhi, it did not render Delhi the appropriate forum. The bench drew from the Full Bench rulings in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and other precedents to underscore that territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) must be harmonized with considerations of convenience, nexus of facts, and fairness.

“Existence of jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is not a mandate to exercise it”: Reliance on Bharat Nidhi, Kusum Ingots, and Ambica Industries

The Court noted that the principle of forum conveniens has been judicially recognized and consistently applied. Quoting the Delhi High Court’s Full Bench ruling in Sterling Agro Industries (2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162), it emphasized:

“Even if a minuscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, the same is not determinative... The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.”

Further, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254 and Ambica Industries v. CCE (2007) 6 SCC 769, the Court reinforced that the location of the authority or issuance of an order cannot be determinative where the bulk of the cause of action, parties, and evidence are situated elsewhere.

The judgment in Bharat Nidhi Ltd. v. SEBI, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8586, was extensively quoted, which had similarly laid down:

“Even if a small part of the cause of action is established, and the same is found to be non-integral or non-material to the lis, the court may invoke the doctrine of forum non-conveniens.” [Para 10]

Criminal Cases and Detention Rooted in West Bengal – Detention Executed in Rajasthan

The factual backdrop made it clear that:

• The petitioner, Mr. Gautam Mondal, is a resident of West Bengal, specifically the Parganas region.
• He is accused in three NDPS cases, all pending before police stations and NCB authorities in West Bengal.
• The sponsoring authority that initiated preventive detention under PITNDPS is the Kolkata Zonal Unit of the Narcotics Control Bureau.
• The grounds of detention were served in Rajasthan, where the petitioner is lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur.

The Court found that “the relevant records pertaining to the petitioner, his alleged criminal antecedents, and the said cases are all located in West Bengal” [Para 17], and thus Calcutta High Court was the most appropriate forum to adjudicate the writ. Alternatively, since the petitioner is in detention in Jaipur, the Rajasthan High Court was also competent.

The Court concluded:

“The present petition is dismissed solely on the ground of forum conveniens, without going into merits, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court.” [Para 18]

Petitioner Not Precluded from Seeking Relief Elsewhere

Importantly, the Delhi High Court clarified that its refusal to exercise jurisdiction would not preclude the petitioner from seeking redress before any competent court. The closing observation of the Court was emphatic:

“Notwithstanding dismissal of the present writ petition by this Court, it will be open to the petitioner to raise his dispute and seek redressal... before any other Court/forum including before the jurisdictional High Court.” [Para 20]

Thus, the Court left the door open for the petitioner to challenge the detention order substantively before the Calcutta High Court or the Rajasthan High Court, without prejudice to his rights.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2026