Delhi High Court Can Hear CAPF Service Dismissal Writs: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction to hear writ petitions filed by members of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including the Border Security Force (BSF), against administrative orders such as termination from service, even if the cause of action arose outside Delhi.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling while reviving a writ petition filed by BSF constable Baksish Ahmad, who had challenged his dismissal from service for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage.

Court said the issue was significant as it could affect not only BSF personnel like the appellant but members of all Central Armed Police Forces.

Why did the Delhi High Court refuse to hear the case?

A division bench of the Delhi High Court had earlier declined to entertain Ahmad's writ petition on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The high court noted that the dismissal order had been issued in West Bengal and that the appellant's statutory petition was later rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF Jammu & Kashmir. It, therefore, held that the cause of action had arisen either in West Bengal or in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Also Read| Delhi High Court Sets Aside CAT Orders Allowing Extended Service in BSF Air Wing

The high court further observed that the mere presence of the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi did not make the Delhi High Court the appropriate forum to hear the case.

What did the appellant argue before the Supreme Court?

Challenging the high court's decision, the appellant argued that the Central Government exercises overall superintendence over the BSF, while its command and administration vest in the Director General, BSF. Since the offices of both authorities are located in Delhi, he contended that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution.

He also submitted that the Delhi High Court was the most convenient forum for both parties, particularly because the BSF Headquarters is located in Delhi.

The Union Government, however, argued that the Delhi High Court had rightly refused to entertain the petition since no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. According to the Centre, the relevant events had occurred in West Bengal, where the dismissal order was passed, and in Jammu and Kashmir, where the statutory appeal was rejected.

Supreme Court on Delhi High Court jurisdiction under Article 226

Examining the issue, the Supreme Court observed that multiple high courts could have exercised jurisdiction in the matter.

It noted that the Calcutta High Court could have entertained the petition because the dismissal order was issued from Narayanpur in Malda district, West Bengal. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh also had jurisdiction since the statutory petition was rejected there. Further, the Allahabad High Court could have been approached because the alleged misconduct arose from the appellant contracting a second marriage in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, without obtaining prior permission while his first marriage was still subsisting.

Also Read| Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal of BSF Officer For Illicit Relationship With Colleague’s Wife

While all these high courts were competent to grant relief if a case on merits was made out, the Bench held that the Delhi High Court was "the fourth forum" competent to entertain the writ petition.

Court explained that Article 226 permits filing of a writ petition either where the respondent authority is situated under clause (1) or where the cause of action arises under clause (2).

"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," the bench said.

Court clarified that where a constitutional remedy is invoked under Article 226(1), the doctrine of forum non conveniens would rarely apply. It added that if a litigant has already chosen a forum that is convenient for the respondents, applying the doctrine could become self-defeating and may end up denying access to justice instead of advancing it.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Delhi High Court's order and restored the writ petition.

The Bench directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit within two months, after which the appellant may file a rejoinder within one month to facilitate the early disposal of the case.

Case Title: Baksish Ahmad Vs Union of India & Anr

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Judgment: June 09, 2026