Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens Rarely A Ground To Deny Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226(1): Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens would not ordinarily apply when a litigant invokes the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, which allows writ petitions to be filed against authorities located within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court.The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court that otherwise has jurisdiction over a dispute to decline to hear it if another court is considered a more appropriate or convenient forum for adjudication.A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the doctrine has limited application in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and would rarely justify a High Court refusing to entertain a writ petition where jurisdiction is invoked under Article 226(1). The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment invoking this doctrine to refuse to entertain a Border Security Force (BSF) constable's challenge to his dismissal from service, and restored the writ petition for consideration on merits.The Court observed that although the doctrine applies where multiple forums are available to a litigant, it was misapplied by the Delhi High Court in the context of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.“In our considered opinion, the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been misapplied by the Division Bench in the context of writ jurisdiction referable to Article 226 of the Constitution. Such article permits filing of a writ petition as per situs of office of the respondent(s) [clause (1)] and cause of action [clause (2)] which gives the right of action. 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 held. The case arose from disciplinary proceedings against BSF constable Baksish Ahmad. He was subsequently served with a show-cause notice alleging violation of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. After he failed to submit a reply within the prescribed period, the Commandant dismissed him from service. His statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules was later rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu. The appellant challenged both orders before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court, however, declined to entertain the petition. It held that the relevant events had occurred either in West Bengal, where the dismissal order was issued, or in Jammu and Kashmir, where the statutory petition was rejected. It concluded that Delhi was not the forum conveniens and dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied on the Court's decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF, where it had held that the Delhi High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 226(1) because the headquarters of the CISF were located in Delhi.The Supreme Court agreed that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction. It noted that Article 226(1) enables a High Court to issue writs against authorities located within its territorial limits, while Article 226(2) confers jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or partly. Since the Union of India and the Director General, BSF were necessary parties and their offices were situated in Delhi, the Delhi High Court was competent to entertain the writ petition, the Supreme Court held.On Forum Non Conveniens, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellant could also have approached the Calcutta High Court, since the show-cause notice and dismissal order were issued in West Bengal, and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, since the statutory petition was rejected there, or the Allahabad High Court, since the alleged misconduct took place in Uttar Pradesh. Nevertheless, the existence of those forums did not justify the Delhi High Court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction, the Court held.The Court observed that in proceedings seeking a writ of certiorari, the relevant records are ordinarily available with the respondent authorities and can readily be produced before the court. In such circumstances, directing a litigant away from a forum chosen on the basis of the respondents' location could impede access to justice, the Court observed.“When a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari is prayed, Rule Nisi requires the records of the case to be placed before the Court for examining whether the order under challenge, which is part of the records, deserves to be quashed or not by a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari. Such records would invariably be available in the offices of the respondents; if not, it can readily be called for from the custodian thereof. 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...

Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens Rarely A Ground To Deny Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226(1): Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens Rarely A Ground To Deny Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226(1): Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers