Legal Analysis: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 630

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: June 9, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856 of 2026 against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 10th January 2025 in Writ Petition (C) No. [not specified] and order dated 29th August 2025 dismissing review petition.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant, a member of the Border Security Force (BSF), was dismissed from service for contracting a second marriage without permission during the subsistence of his first marriage. His dismissal order was issued at Narayanpur, West Bengal. His statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules was rejected by the Inspector General at Jammu. He filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, contending that the offices of the Director General, BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are located in Delhi, conferring territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(1). The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, holding that the cause of action arose in West Bengal and Jammu & Kashmir, and that Delhi was not a convenient forum. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that: (i) under Article 226(1), the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction because the Director General, BSF (the authority vested with supervision and command) is situated in Delhi; (ii) the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be applied to defeat a litigant’s right to approach a High Court that has clear constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226(1), especially when the respondent is the Union of India and the authority whose order is challenged is amenable to suit at Delhi; (iii) the principle in Abrar Ali v. CISF was correctly decided; (iv) the Division Bench misapplied the doctrine as it is ordinarily invoked when multiple alternative fora exist and the chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious, but here the appellant had a constitutional right to sue where the respondent sits. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was ordered to be restored before the Delhi High Court for hearing on merits.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 630

Civil Appeal Nos.: Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856 of 2026

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: June 9, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 10th January 2025 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. [not specified] and order dated 29th August 2025 dismissing the review petition.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226(1) (power of High Courts to issue writs where the person or authority against whom the writ is sought is situated within the territorial limits of the High Court), Article 226(2) (power where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the territorial limits).

• Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Sections 4 and 5 (command and administration of BSF vest in the Director General).

• Border Security Force Rules, 1969 – Rule 7 (misconduct), Rule 22 (dismissal or removal by Commandant), Rule 22(4) (every order of dismissal to be communicated to the Director General), Rule 177 (procedure for imposing major penalties), Rule 28A (statutory petition against dismissal).

• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Rule 21 (restriction regarding marriage).

• Doctrine of forum non conveniens – A court having jurisdiction may decline to exercise it if there is a more appropriate forum available, provided the alternative forum can provide fair and adequate remedy.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Abrar Ali v. CISF (2012) 12 SCC 152 – Delhi High Court has te

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.