CAPF Personnel Can Approach Delhi High Court For Service Disputes Though Cause Of Action Arose Outside : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that members of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including the Border Security Force (BSF), can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in service matters even when the cause of action arises outside Delhi, owing to the location of the offices of the Union of India and the respective force headquarters in the national capital.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by BSF constable Baksish Ahmad, whose writ petition challenging his dismissal from service had been rejected by the Delhi High Court on the ground of "forum non conveniens".
The Court observed:
"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."
The appellant, a BSF constable enrolled in 2010, was dismissed from service in October 2022 after a Staff Court of Inquiry found that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage and without obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority. His statutory petition against the dismissal was later rejected by the Inspector General, BSF, Jammu.
Challenging both orders, Ahmad approached the Delhi High Court. However, the High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that the relevant events had occurred in West Bengal, where he was dismissed, and in Jammu & Kashmir, where his statutory petition was rejected. It concluded that Delhi was not the appropriate forum and relegated him to approach a court having territorial jurisdiction over those places.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution because the offices of the Director General, BSF, and the Ministry of Home Affairs are situated in Delhi. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF, which had restored a similar service matter to the Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court agreed that the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction. Referring to Abrar Ali, the bench noted that the Union of India and the Director General of the BSF were necessary parties to the proceedings and both were located in Delhi. It further observed that every dismissal order passed under the BSF Rules is required to be reported to the Director General.
While acknowledging that the appellant could have approached the Calcutta High Court, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, or even the Allahabad High Court on the basis of different parts of the cause of action, the Court held that Delhi was also a competent forum under Article 226(1).
The bench further held that the Delhi High Court had incorrectly invoked the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline jurisdiction. It observed that the doctrine, which allows a court to refuse to entertain a matter if another forum is more appropriate, has limited application in writ proceedings under Article 226, particularly where jurisdiction is founded on the location of the respondent authorities.
"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 said. It added that requiring a litigant to approach another court despite having chosen a forum convenient to the respondents could end up denying access to justice rather than advancing it.
Setting aside the Delhi High Court's order, the Supreme Court restored Ahmad's writ petition to the file of the Delhi High Court for adjudication on merits. The respondents have been granted two months to file their counter-affidavit, while the appellant may file a rejoinder within one month thereafter.
Case: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 613