Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India and Anr. 2026 INSC 630

The appellant, Baksish Ahmad, was enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) in 2010 and was posted in Malda, West Bengal. In 2022, allegations surfaced that he had contracted a second marriage with a married woman in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, without obtaining a divorce from his first wife or permission from the competent authority. A Staff Court of Inquiry (SCoI) confirmed the second marriage, which violated Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and Rule 7 of the BSF Rules.

Following a show cause notice served in Malda, the appellant was dismissed from service on October 27, 2022. His subsequent statutory petition was rejected by the Inspector General, BSF, Jammu. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, arguing that it had jurisdiction because the offices of the Director General (DG), BSF, and the Ministry of Home Affairs are located in Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that it was not the forum conveniens as no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

Territorial Jurisdiction: The Court held that since the Union of India and the DG, BSF, have their offices in Delhi, the Delhi High Court possesses competence to try the case under Article 226(1). Furthermore, Rule 22(4) of the BSF Rules requires all dismissal orders to be reported to the DG, reinforcing the link to Delhi.

Misapplication of Forum Non Conveniens: The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction if a more appropriate or convenient forum exists. However, the Court found it was misapplied here. The appellant had chosen a forum that was inherently convenient for the respondents (their headquarters).

Access to Justice: The Court reasoned that applying this doctrine in writ proceedings where the suitor has approached the respondents’ home forum could be self-defeating and deny access to justice. In cases of Certiorari, the relevant records are typically available at or can be easily summoned to the respondents’ headquarters.

The Court clarified that while a High Court can refuse jurisdiction if only a “small part” of the cause of action arises there, the situs of the office of the respondent remains a valid and potent ground for jurisdiction under the Constitution.