SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court on Monday restored a dismissed writ petition of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable before the Delhi High Court, holding that the Delhi High Court does possess territorial jurisdiction to hear service matters involving Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) because the Union Government and force headquarters are located in the national capital.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the judgment in Baksish Ahmad vs Union of India and Anr., setting aside a January 10, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court which had refused to entertain the constable’s plea on the ground of “forum non conveniens”.
The judgment was delivered on June 9, 2026.
The appellant, Baksish Ahmad, had challenged his dismissal from service by the BSF after allegations that he contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without obtaining official permission.
The Supreme Court ruled that while other High Courts may also have jurisdiction based on where the cause of action arose, the Delhi High Court could not refuse to entertain the petition merely by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens in such circumstances.
“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 Court held.
According to the judgment, Ahmad was enrolled in the BSF on December 31, 2010 and was posted with the 44 Battalion at Narayanpur in Malda district of West Bengal at the relevant time.
In April 2022, a missing person report concerning a woman was received by the BSF unit. Ahmad and another constable came under suspicion in connection with the alleged abduction. Simultaneously, Ahmad’s wife filed a complaint alleging that he had contracted a second marriage against her wishes and had subjected her to criminal force.
A Staff Court of Inquiry conducted by the BSF found that Ahmad had married another woman on May 6, 2022 despite the subsistence of his first marriage. The second marriage was later registered in Kushinagar district of Uttar Pradesh on May 23, 2022.
The inquiry found that the second marriage had been contracted without obtaining permission from the competent authority and without divorcing his first wife. However, Ahmad was exonerated of allegations relating to abduction.
Subsequently, Ahmad was served a show cause notice under Rules 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules, 1969, alleging violation of Rule 7 of the BSF Rules and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 relating to bigamy.
After he failed to respond within the stipulated period, the Commandant of the 44 Battalion dismissed him from service on October 27, 2022 without pensionary benefits.
His statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules was later rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF Jammu, on December 22, 2023.
Ahmad thereafter approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the Court had jurisdiction because the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are situated in Delhi.
However, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no part of the cause of action had arisen within Delhi and that the proper forums would be either West Bengal or Jammu Kashmir.
The High Court had observed: “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.”
Appearing for Ahmad, advocate Inayati argued that Article 226(1) of the Constitution clearly empowered the Delhi High Court to entertain the matter because the BSF headquarters and Union Government were located in Delhi.
He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Abrar Ali vs CISF, where the Court had restored a similar petition before the Delhi High Court.
The counsel also cited multiple Division Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court that had followed the Abrar Ali precedent.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union Government and BSF authorities, defended the Delhi High Court judgment and argued that the principal cause of action arose in West Bengal and Jammu Kashmir, not Delhi.
The Supreme Court agreed that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1).
The Court observed: “The Delhi Court did have the competence to entertain and try the writ petition of the appellant.”
The bench also clarified the scope of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in writ proceedings.
In a significant observation, the Court held: “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.”
The Court further said: “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.”
The judgment noted that members of CAPFs, including the BSF, can approach the Delhi High Court in service matters because the Union Government and the Director General of the force are based in Delhi.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged that other High Courts could also exercise jurisdiction depending on where parts of the cause of action arose.
The Court identified four possible forums in the present case:
Calcutta High Court, since dismissal proceedings originated in West Bengal;
High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh, where the statutory appeal was rejected; Allahabad High Court, because the alleged second marriage took place in Uttar Pradesh; Delhi High Court, due to the location of BSF headquarters and Union Government offices.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order and restored Ahmad’s writ petition for hearing on merits.
The Court granted two months to the respondents to file their counter affidavit and one additional month for Ahmad to file a rejoinder.
However, the Court dismissed Ahmad’s separate appeal against rejection of his review petition as not maintainable.
The judgment is expected to have wider implications for service litigation involving personnel of CAPFs such as the BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB, particularly on questions of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
