The Supreme Court has ruled that personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) can approach the Delhi High Court in service matters even if the cause of action arises elsewhere. This is because the Central Government’s offices and the CAPFs’ headquarters are located in the national capital.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Territorial Jurisdiction
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated: “We hold that, 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... 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 court further noted that when a constitutional remedy is pursued under Article 226(1), the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply. Requiring a litigant to approach another court despite having chosen a forum convenient to the respondents could deny access to justice rather than advancing it.
Background of the Case
The ruling came in an appeal by BSF constable Baksish Ahmad against the Delhi High Court’s decision dismissing his petition on the ground of forum non conveniens. Ahmad, enrolled in 2010, was dismissed from service in October 2022 after a Staff Court of Inquiry found he had contracted a second marriage during his first marriage without obtaining requisite permission. His statutory petition against the dismissal was rejected by the Inspector General, BSF Jammu.
When Ahmad moved the Delhi High Court, it refused to entertain his plea for want of territorial jurisdiction, noting that the dismissal occurred in West Bengal and his statutory petition was rejected in Jammu and Kashmir.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s order and restored Ahmad’s petition for adjudication on merits. It directed the respondents, including BSF, to file their replies within two months, and granted Ahmad one month to file his rejoinder.
The apex court acknowledged that Ahmad could have approached the Calcutta High Court, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, or the Allahabad High Court based on different parts of the cause of action. However, it held that Delhi was also a competent forum under Article 226(1) of the Constitution because the Director General of BSF sits in Delhi.
The court noted that every dismissal order passed under the BSF Rules must be reported to the Director General, reinforcing the connection to Delhi.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment provides significant relief to CAPF personnel, ensuring they can seek justice in Delhi High Court without being constrained by the location of the cause of action. It underscores the importance of access to justice and the limited applicability of forum non conveniens in constitutional remedies.
