Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Baksish Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos 8453 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856 of 2026]
Decided On : 09-06-2026
Constitution of India – Article 226 – [Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 – Rule 22] – Dismissal from BSF for having contracted second marriage, without obtaining necessary permission of competent authority as well as without obtaining divorce from his first wife – In case any member of CAPF, and that includes BSF, is aggrieved by any administrative order of termination of his service issued by competent authority, notwithstanding that said order was issued from a place beyond territorial limits of Delhi High Court or that events which triggered such order occurred outside its limits, still Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in light of situs of office of Union of India and Director General, BSF/Officer in whom is vested supervision and command of other CAPF – Doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where multiple fora are available to a litigant for seeking same remedy – Doctrine of forum non conveniens has been misapplied by Division Bench in context of writ jurisdiction referable to Article 226 of Constitution – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 27, 29, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
The limited question before Court is whether Delhi High Court was right in refusing to entertain, try and adjudicate writ petition of appellant on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Findings of Court:
This order results in revival of appellant’s writ petition on file of Delhi High Court. Same may now be considered and decided on its own merits and according to law. For facilitating early disposal thereof, respondents in writ petition granted two months’ time to file their counter affidavit; rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed by appellant by a month thereafter.
Result : Appeal allowed. Appeal against order of dismissal of review petition dismissed as not maintainable.
Key Points: - The Delhi High Court held that parts of the cause of action arose outside but Delhi could still have jurisdiction under Article 226(1) due to situs of Union of India and BSF leadership (p_77). - The Division Bench’s use of forum non conveniens in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was found misapplied; forum non conveniens applies when multiple fora are available for the same remedy (p_82] (!) (!) (!) . - The matter revived the writ petition in Delhi High Court for merits, noting that the appropriate forum may be other high courts with jurisdiction where actions occurred (p_94). - The impugned Delhi High Court order dismissing the petition on forum non conveniens was set aside, and the petition revived (p_92][p_95).
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
THE CHALLENGE
2. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th January, 20251[impugned order] of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi2[Delhi High Court] dismissing his writ petition3[W.P. (C) No.229 of 2025] as well as the order dated 29th August, 2025 of dismissal of his review petition4[RP No.38 of 2025].
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The facts, relevant for deciding this appeal, are as under:
b) The Sector Headquarters, BSF, Malda, ordered a Staff Court of Inquiry8[SCoI] 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.
c) On 19th September, 2022, the appellant was served with a show cause notice9[SCN] under Rules 2210[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.] and 17711[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.] of the Border Security
(1) Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain matters related to BSF.(2) Doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where multiple fora are available to a litigant for seek....
The doctrine of forum conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction even when a part of the cause of action arises in its territory, focusing on the convenience of all parties involved.
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
Where a part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of a particular High Court and said court assumed jurisdiction in view of mandate of Articles 226(2) of Constitution of India, even in such c....
The court emphasized that a dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct and that procedural violations in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate the outcome.
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
The court ruled that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions when the integral part of the cause of action arises outside its territorial limits, despite minor connections to th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
