Case Note & Summary
The appellant, was enrolled as a member of the Border Security Force (BSF) on 31 December 2010 and posted in the 44th Battalion. In April 2022, a missing person report was received concerning a lady, and the appellant was suspected of involvement in her abduction. Subsequently, the appellant's wife lodged a complaint alleging that the appellant had contracted a second marriage against her wishes and subjected her to criminal force. A Staff Court of Inquiry was ordered, which found that the appellant had married the lady on 6 May 2022 during the subsistence of his first marriage and without obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority. The inquiry exonerated him of the abduction allegations. On 19 September 2022, the appellant was served with a show cause notice under Rules 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules, 1969, read with Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, alleging violation of Rule 7 of the BSF Rules. The appellant failed to submit a reply within the stipulated period, and by order dated 27 October 2022, the Commandant of the 44th Battalion dismissed him from service without pensionary benefits. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules, which was rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu on 22 December 2023. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging both the dismissal order and the rejection of his statutory petition. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, as the dismissal order was passed in West Bengal and the statutory petition was rejected in Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens and declined to entertain the petition, while reserving the appellant's liberty to approach the appropriate court. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the issue of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. The appellant argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are located in Delhi, and relied on the decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF. The respondents contended that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and that the High Court correctly applied forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court erred in dismissing the petition without first determining whether any part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The Court noted that the impugned order did not consider the appellant's submission that the show cause notice was served on him in West Bengal and that the dismissal order was also served there, but the statutory petition was rejected in Jammu and Kashmir. The Court emphasized that the High Court must examine whether a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, particularly since the respondents' offices are located there. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court for fresh consideration on the question of territorial jurisdiction, directing it to decide the writ petition on merits in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(1) and (2) - The High Court must first determine whether any part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits before applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The mere location of the respondent's offices in Delhi does not automatically confer jurisdiction, but if a part of the cause of action arises in Delhi, the High Court cannot decline jurisdiction solely on forum non conveniens. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - Dismissal from Service - Border Security Force Rules, 1969, Rules 22, 177, 28A - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 21 - Second marriage without permission - The appellant was dismissed for contracting a second marriage without permission during subsistence of first marriage. The dismissal order was passed in West Bengal and the statutory petition was rejected in Jammu and Kashmir. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition on territorial jurisdiction grounds. (Paras 3-5) C) Precedent - Territorial Jurisdiction - Abrar Ali v. CISF - The Supreme Court in Abrar Ali held that if a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a High Court, it cannot refuse to entertain the petition on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Delhi High Court failed to follow this precedent. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the dismissal order passed by the Commandant of BSF in West Bengal and the rejection of statutory petition by the Inspector General in Jammu and Kashmir, merely because the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are located in Delhi.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Delhi High Court dated 10.01.2025 and the order dismissing the review petition dated 29.08.2025, and remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court for fresh consideration on the question of territorial jurisdiction and to decide the writ petition on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226
- Cause of action
- Forum non conveniens
- Doctrine of forum conveniens
- BSF Rules 1969
- Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964
