The Supreme Court has restored a dismissed writ petition filed by a Border Security Force (BSF) constable before the Delhi High Court. The Court held that the Delhi High Court was competent to hear the matter because the Union Government and the Director General of BSF are based in Delhi.
The appellant, Baksish Ahmad, was serving in the BSF when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2022. A Staff Court of Inquiry examined allegations that he had entered into a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting and without obtaining the required permission from the competent authority.
Following the inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued. After no reply was submitted within the prescribed period, the Commandant of the 44th Battalion dismissed him from service in October 2022. His subsequent statutory petition was rejected by the Inspector General, BSF, in December 2023.
The constable then approached the Delhi High Court challenging both orders. However, the High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that the relevant events had occurred in West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir and that Delhi was not the appropriate forum.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution because the Director General, BSF, and the Ministry of Home Affairs are situated in Delhi.
The Union Government opposed the appeal, contending that the cause of action arose outside Delhi and that the petitioner should pursue remedies before the High Courts where the relevant events took place.
The Supreme Court examined earlier decisions dealing with territorial jurisdiction and the doctrine of "forum non conveniens"—a principle allowing a court to decline a case if another forum is more appropriate.
Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench, observed that the Delhi High Court did possess jurisdiction because the Union of India and the Director General of BSF were necessary parties to the dispute.
The Court stated, “The Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in light of situs of office of the Union of India and the Director General.”
The Bench further noted that the doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied sparingly in constitutional writ proceedings.
“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 observed.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order and restored the writ petition to its file for consideration on merits. The Court directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit within two months and permitted the petitioner to file a rejoinder thereafter.
The appeal challenging the dismissal of the review petition was, however, held to be not maintainable and was dismissed. The writ petition will now proceed before the Delhi High Court in accordance with law.
Case Title: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856 of 2026
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Decision Date: June 9, 2026
