The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Rarely Applies Where Writ Jurisdiction is Invoked Under Article 226(1)

The appellant, an enrolled member of the Border Security Force (BSF), was dismissed from service on October 27, 2022, by the Commandant, 44 Bn, following a Staff Court of Inquiry which found he had contracted a second marriage without permission while his first marriage subsisted.

The dismissal order and the subsequent rejection of his statutory petition by the Inspector General, Jammu, were challenged before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that although the respondents’ offices were in Delhi, the court was forum non conveniens as the cause of action arose in West Bengal and Jammu Kashmir.

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging a dismissal order passed outside Delhi when the headquarters of the relevant authority (Director General, BSF) is situated within Delhi.

2. Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens can be invoked to refuse exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution when the respondent's situs of office is within the court's territory.

The court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India, distinguishing between clause (1) regarding the situs of the respondent and clause (2) regarding the cause of action.

It relied on Abrar Ali v. CISF, which established that the location of a Force’s headquarters in Delhi satisfies jurisdictional requirements under Article 226(1).

It further referenced Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway regarding the Union of India as a necessary party.

It further referenced Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India regarding the discretionary application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in writ proceedings.

The Supreme Court reasoned that under Article 226(1), the Delhi High Court possesses competence because the Union of India and the Director General, BSF—necessary parties for enforcing any reinstatement—are headquartered in Delhi.

The Court found that the Division Bench misapplied the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It held that when a petitioner invokes jurisdiction based on the situs of the respondent (clause 1), and seeks a writ of Certiorari requiring the production of service records (which are reported to the Director General in Delhi under Rule 22(4) of the BSF Rules), the court should not decline to hear the matter.

The Court emphasized that since the appellant chose a forum convenient to the respondents, denying him access to that court on the grounds of inconvenience to himself or the court would defeat the purpose of constitutional remedies and access to justice.

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the writ petition revived for disposal on merits by the Delhi High Court. The challenge against the review petition dismissal was dismissed as not maintainable.