THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News

4 min read

The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens (a court's discretionary power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court or forum may more conveniently hear a case), has very  limited application where a litigant invokes the writ jurisdiction of a High Court to pursue constitutional remedies under Article 226(1) of the Constitution.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while allowing the appeal of a dismissed Border Security Force (BSF) officer whose writ petition had been rejected by the Delhi High Court on the ground of forum non conveniens.

The Court held that Article 226 permits a writ petition to be filed either on the basis of the situs of the respondent authorities or on the basis of the cause of action. Where the invocation of writ jurisdiction is traceable to Article 226(1), the doctrine of forum non conveniens would rarely justify refusal of relief.

The appellant, a BSF constable, was dismissed from service following allegations that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of his existing marriage without obtaining the requisite permission. After his statutory petition was rejected, he approached the Delhi High Court challenging the dismissal order. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that another forum would be more appropriate.

Setting aside that decision, the Supreme Court noted that the Union of India and the Director General, BSF - both based in New Delhi, were necessary parties to the proceedings. Since these authorities had been impleaded as respondents, the Delhi High Court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Explaining the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court observed that it operates only where multiple competent forums are available and one forum is demonstrably more suitable for adjudication. However, in writ proceedings, particularly where records can be readily produced by respondent authorities, the doctrine must be applied with caution.

The Bench further observed that denying a litigant access to a chosen forum that is convenient to the respondents themselves may defeat, rather than advance, the cause of justice. Holding that the doctrine had been misapplied by the Delhi High Court, the Court allowed the appeal and revived the appellant's writ petition for adjudication on merits.

The Reasoning

The Supreme Court observed that Article 226 contemplates two distinct jurisdictional bases. Under Article 226(1), a High Court may exercise jurisdiction based on the location of the respondent authority, while Article 226(2) permits jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits.

The Bench emphasized that the present case was one where jurisdiction was invoked under Article 226(1). It held that where respondent authorities are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, and a writ petition is maintainable on that basis, the doctrine of forum non conveniens would rarely warrant refusal to entertain the petition.

Referring to its earlier decision in Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, the Court noted that in service matters involving dismissal or removal from service, the Union of India ultimately bears responsibility for implementing any order that may set aside such dismissal. Consequently, the Union of India and the Director General, BSF, having offices in New Delhi, were necessary parties to the proceedings, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court.

The Court further observed that Rule 22(4) of the BSF Rules requires every dismissal or removal order to be reported to the Director General. Applying the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, the Bench held that this requirement further strengthened the jurisdictional connection with New Delhi.

Addressing the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court explained that it applies only where multiple competent forums are available to a litigant and one forum is demonstrably more convenient or better suited to adjudicate the dispute. In such circumstances, a court may decline to exercise jurisdiction and leave the litigant free to approach another competent forum.

However, the Bench cautioned that the doctrine cannot be mechanically transplanted into constitutional adjudication. It observed that when a writ of certiorari is sought, the court is required to examine the records forming the basis of the impugned decision. Such records are ordinarily available with the respondent authorities and can be readily produced before the court. Therefore, considerations of convenience assume a diminished significance in writ proceedings.

The Court also underscored the importance of preserving access to constitutional remedies. It observed that where a litigant has approached a forum that is itself convenient for the respondents, invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens may become self-defeating and may operate to deny access to justice rather than facilitate efficient adjudication.

Accordingly, the Bench concluded that the Delhi High Court had misapplied the doctrine of forum non conveniens in declining to entertain the writ petition and restored the matter for consideration on merits.

Case Citation: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India (2026 INSC 630).