The Supreme Court has ruled on Delhi High Court territorial jurisdiction in CAPF service matters, holding that the Delhi High Court can entertain writ petitions filed by members of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, even if the cause of action arises outside Delhi. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order refusing to hear a dismissed BSF constable’s petition on the ground of forum non conveniens and restored the case for adjudication on merits.
Background of the Dispute
Baksish Ahmad joined the Border Security Force (BSF) on December 31, 2010. At the relevant time, he served with the 44th Battalion at Narayanpur, Malda, West Bengal.
In April 2022, BSF authorities received a missing person complaint involving a woman. They suspected Ahmad and another constable of participating in her alleged abduction.
Around the same time, Ahmad’s wife filed a complaint alleging that he had contracted a second marriage against her wishes and had subjected her to criminal force. BSF authorities constituted a Staff Court of Inquiry to investigate the allegations.
The inquiry found that Ahmad had married another woman on May 6, 2022 while his first marriage remained valid. It also found that he registered the marriage in Uttar Pradesh without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority or securing a divorce from his first wife. However, the inquiry cleared him of the abduction allegation.
Disciplinary Proceedings
On September 19, 2022, BSF authorities issued a show-cause notice under Rules 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules, 1969. They alleged that Ahmad violated Rule 7 of the BSF Rules and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by entering into a second marriage without permission.
Ahmad did not submit a reply within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Commandant of the 44th Battalion dismissed him from service on October 27, 2022 without pensionary benefits.
The Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu, later rejected his statutory petition under Rule 28A on December 22, 2023.
Delhi High Court Declines Jurisdiction
Ahmad challenged both orders before the Delhi High Court under Article 226.
The High Court held that no part of the cause of action arose within Delhi. It noted that officials passed the dismissal order in West Bengal and rejected the statutory petition in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Court further observed that the presence of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi did not automatically make Delhi the appropriate forum. It therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction by applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens while granting Ahmad liberty to approach another High Court.
The High Court also dismissed his review petition.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Advocate Mr. Inayati argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(1) because both the Union of India and the Director General, BSF were located in Delhi.
He relied on Abrar Ali v. CISF, where the Supreme Court restored a writ petition before the Delhi High Court because the CISF headquarters was situated in Delhi.
He also cited several Delhi High Court judgments that followed Abrar Ali and submitted that Delhi remained the appropriate forum.
Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati defended the High Court’s decision. She argued that the cause of action arose either in West Bengal or Jammu and Kashmir and relied on the three-Judge Bench decision in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE regarding forum non conveniens.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined whether the Delhi High Court correctly declined jurisdiction.
The Bench reviewed Abrar Ali v. CISF and observed that the Supreme Court had restored the petition because jurisdiction also flowed from Article 226(1), as the CISF headquarters was located in Delhi.
The Court also referred to Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway. It observed that the Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties in service disputes involving dismissal.
The Bench held that Sections 4 and 5 of the BSF Act, Rule 22(4) of the BSF Rules and the location of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF in Delhi clearly establish the Delhi High Court’s competence to hear such petitions.
Clarification on CAPF Service Matters
Reconciling earlier precedents, including Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee and Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff, the Supreme Court clarified Delhi High Court territorial jurisdiction in CAPF service matters.
The Court held that when a CAPF member challenges an administrative order terminating service, the Delhi High Court possesses territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1) because the Union of India and the headquarters of the concerned force are situated in Delhi.
Forum Non Conveniens Cannot Defeat Access to Justice
The Bench acknowledged that other High Courts, including the Calcutta High Court, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and the Allahabad High Court, could also exercise jurisdiction under Article 226(2).
However, it held that the Delhi High Court remained a competent forum under Article 226(1).
The Court ruled that the High Court misapplied the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It observed that the doctrine would rarely apply when jurisdiction arises under Article 226(1).
The Bench further noted that respondent authorities ordinarily possess the relevant records and can easily produce them before the Court. Therefore, denying access to the chosen forum could hinder rather than promote justice.
Final Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored Ahmad’s writ petition before the Delhi High Court for consideration on merits.
However, it dismissed the appeal against the order rejecting the review petition as not maintainable.
To ensure expeditious disposal, the Court granted the respondents two months to file their counter affidavit and one additional month for Ahmad to file a rejoinder, if required. It also disposed of all connected applications.
