The Supreme Court held that BSF and other CAPF personnel can approach the Delhi High Court in service-related disputes even if the cause of action arose outside Delhi. The Court said jurisdiction exists because the Union Government and force headquarters are located in the national capital.
The Supreme Court ruled that members of the Border Security Force (BSF) and other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) can approach the Delhi High Court in service-related disputes even when the cause of action arises outside Delhi, provided the Union of India and the concerned force headquarters are located in the national capital.
In a significant judgment delivered on June 9, 2026, a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeal filed by BSF constable Baksish Ahmad and set aside an order of the Delhi High Court that had refused to entertain his writ petition on the ground of forum non conveniens.
The case arose after Ahmad, who was enrolled in the BSF in December 2010 and posted with the 44th Battalion in West Bengal, was dismissed from service following allegations that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage without obtaining the required permission from the competent authority.
According to the record, a missing person complaint relating to a woman led to a Staff Court of Inquiry by the BSF. During the inquiry, it was found that Ahmad had married the woman on May 6, 2022, and later registered the marriage in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. The inquiry concluded that he had entered into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting and without obtaining permission from the competent authority.
However, he was cleared of allegations relating to the woman’s alleged abduction.
Following the inquiry, Ahmad was served with a show-cause notice alleging violations of Rule 7 of the BSF Rules, 1969 and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Since he did not submit a reply within the stipulated period, the Commandant of the 44th Battalion dismissed him from service on October 27, 2022, without pensionary benefits.
After his statutory petition was rejected by the Inspector General, BSF, Jammu, Ahmad approached the Delhi High Court seeking reinstatement.
The High Court declined to entertain the petition, observing that the dismissal order had been issued in West Bengal and the statutory petition had been rejected in Jammu and Kashmir. It held that Delhi was not the appropriate forum and dismissed the petition while granting liberty to approach another court having jurisdiction.
Challenging that decision before the Supreme Court, Ahmad argued that the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction because the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs were situated in Delhi. He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF.
Accepting the contention, the Supreme Court held that Article 226(1) of the Constitution empowers a High Court to exercise jurisdiction where the authority against whom relief is sought is located. Since the Union of India and the Director General, BSF were necessary parties and their offices were situated in Delhi, the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
The Court observed that although parts of the cause of action arose in West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, and Uttar Pradesh, the Delhi High Court still had the competence to hear the matter because of the location of the authorities concerned.
The Bench held,
“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 Supreme Court further clarified that the doctrine of forum non conveniens had been incorrectly applied by the Delhi High Court.
Explaining the principle, the Court noted that forum non conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction when another forum is more convenient. However, the doctrine should be applied sparingly in constitutional writ proceedings.
The Bench observed,
“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.”
The Court further stated,
“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 judgment emphasized that records relevant to service disputes are generally available with the authorities against whom relief is sought and can easily be produced before the court.
Therefore, forcing a litigant to approach another forum despite the chosen court having jurisdiction may hinder access to justice rather than promote it.
Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s order, the Supreme Court restored Ahmad’s writ petition and directed that it be heard on merits. The Court granted the respondents two months to file their counter affidavit and one additional month for the appellant to file a rejoinder.
The ruling is significant for thousands of personnel serving in the BSF and other CAPFs as it clarifies that the Delhi High Court can exercise jurisdiction in service matters involving central forces because the Union Government and force headquarters are based in Delhi.
The judgment also narrows the scope for applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India