Baksish Ahmad vs Union of India & Anr 2026 INSC 630 - Doctrine Of Forum Non Conveniens - CAPF/BSF Termination - Writ Petition Maintainability
Constitution of India - Article 226 - In case any member of the CAPF, and that includes the BSF, is aggrieved by any administrative order of termination of his service issued by the competent authority, notwithstanding that the cause of action arose outside, i.e., the said order was issued from a place beyond the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court or that the events which triggered such an order occurred outside its limits, etc., still the Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in light of situs of office of the Union of India and the Director General, BSF/the officer in whom is vested supervision and command of the other CAPF, as per clause (1) of Article 226. (Para 27)
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Doctrine of forum non conveniens -Where the question of pursuing a constitutional remedy is involved and invocation of writ jurisdiction is traceable to clause (1) of Article 226, the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply. When a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari is prayed, Rule Nisi requires the records of the case to be placed before the Court for examining whether the order under challenge, which is part of the records, deserves to be quashed or not by a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari. Such records would invariably be available in the offices of the respondents; if not, it can readily be called for from the custodian thereof. A suitor having himself chosen the forum convenient to the respondents, application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens could be self-defeating and likely to deny access to justice rather than advancing it. (Para 37)
Doctrine of forum non conveniens - The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where multiple fora are available to a litigant for seeking the same remedy; and, when such multiple fora are available, the forum which has been approached is entitled in law to examine whether any other forum is more convenient and/or better suited to consider and decide the claim that has been raised by the aggrieved litigant. For informed reasons, the forum seized of the claim may refuse to entertain the claim and leave the said litigant free to approach the other forum.The core idea of forum non conveniens is that although the court which has been approached by the suitor can legally entertain and try his case, the said court may refuse to do so and require the suitor to approach an appropriate court exercising similar jurisdiction and having powers to grant similar relief that is more convenient to the parties. Ordinarily, it would be the respondent who is likely to raise an objection. By invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the respondent while conceding jurisdiction would urge the court to decline its exercise. In courteous terms, the argument would be : though the court can entertain and try the lis but it may not. (Para 29-36)
