The Supreme Court has held that the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to hear service-related disputes filed by personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including the Border Security Force (BSF), even when the cause of action arises outside the national capital.

A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling on June 9 while allowing an appeal filed by dismissed BSF constable Baksish Ahmad. The Court set aside an earlier order of the Delhi High Court, which had declined to entertain Ahmad's writ petition by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The apex court clarified that the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction flows from Article 226(1) of the Constitution, which permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction based on the location of the respondent authority. Since the offices of the Union government and the Director General of the BSF are situated in Delhi, the High Court is competent to hear such challenges irrespective of where the disputed events occurred.

The Bench observed that when a litigant approaches a High Court under Article 226(1) on the basis of the location of the respondent authority, the doctrine of forum non conveniens would have limited application.

"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 ... 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," the Court held.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against Ahmad, who was serving as a BSF constable in West Bengal. Allegations were made that he had entered into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting.

A Staff Court of Inquiry found that Ahmad had contracted the second marriage without obtaining permission from the competent authority and without securing a divorce from his first wife. The marriage was reportedly registered in Uttar Pradesh during the subsistence of both his own marriage and that of the woman involved.

Following the inquiry, Ahmad was issued a show-cause notice. As he failed to respond within the prescribed time, the Commandant of the 44 Battalion dismissed him from service on October 27, 2022, without pensionary benefits.

His statutory appeal was subsequently rejected by the Inspector General of BSF in Jammu and Kashmir. Ahmad then approached the Delhi High Court challenging both orders.

The High Court, however, declined to entertain the petition, noting that the dismissal order had been passed in West Bengal and the statutory appeal had been decided in Jammu and Kashmir. It held that Delhi was not the appropriate forum for adjudication.

Challenging this decision, Ahmad moved the Supreme Court. He argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because both the Director General of BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are based in Delhi.

The Union government, on the other hand, contended that the High Court had correctly declined jurisdiction since the relevant events occurred outside Delhi.

Examining the issue, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier judgment in Abrar Ali v. CISF, which recognised the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction in similar circumstances owing to the location of the force headquarters in Delhi.

The Court held that while other High Courts may also have jurisdiction because parts of the cause of action arose within their territories, such concurrent jurisdiction does not exclude the Delhi High Court's authority to hear the matter.

Concluding that the doctrine of forum non conveniens had been incorrectly invoked, the Supreme Court restored Ahmad's writ petition and directed that it be considered on merits by the Delhi High Court.

Advocate Mahboob Alam Inayat, along with advocates Furkan Ali Mirza and Naresh Kumar, appeared for the petitioner. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the respondents along with a team of government counsel.