Supreme Court Upholds Delhi High Court’s Jurisdiction in CAPF Cases
The Supreme Court of India has recently affirmed that the Delhi High Court holds territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related disputes involving personnel from the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), such as the Border Security Force (BSF), even if the cause of action originated outside the national capital. This decision came in the case of Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court overturned a prior ruling by the Delhi High Court.
The case centered on a BSF constable, Baksish Ahmad, who contested his dismissal from service. The Delhi High Court had previously dismissed his petition, citing the principle of forum non conveniens—a legal doctrine allowing courts to refuse cases if another forum is deemed more appropriate. However, the Supreme Court’s Bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, found the doctrine misapplied in this context.
According to the Supreme Court, Article 226(1) of the Indian Constitution permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction based on the location of the respondent authority, independent of where the cause of action arose. The Court clarified that, given the presence of the Union government and the Director General of the BSF in Delhi, the Delhi High Court is well within its rights to hear such petitions.
In delivering its judgment on June 9, the Bench emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens would rarely apply when a petitioner invokes the writ jurisdiction of a High Court based on the presence of the respondent authority in its jurisdiction. “Be that as it may, to reconcile the conflict, if any, 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,” the judgment stated.
Ahmad, who served as a BSF constable in West Bengal, faced allegations of contracting a second marriage while his first was still valid. Following a Staff Court of Inquiry, he was dismissed from service without pensionary benefits after failing to respond to a show-cause notice. His statutory petition was rejected by the Inspector General of BSF in Jammu and Kashmir, leading him to challenge the decision in the Delhi High Court.
More Read
The Delhi High Court initially declined to hear the case, arguing that the relevant events transpired in West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir. This led Ahmad to seek redress from the Supreme Court, arguing that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction given the location of the Director General of BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi.
The Union government, however, argued that the Delhi High Court’s dismissal was appropriate, as the material events occurred outside Delhi. The Supreme Court, referencing its earlier decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF, reiterated that the presence of the force’s headquarters in Delhi conferred jurisdiction upon the Delhi High Court.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that while other High Courts could potentially have jurisdiction due to parts of the cause of action occurring in their territories, this did not invalidate the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated Ahmad’s writ petition for further consideration on its merits.
More Read
Legal representation for Ahmad was provided by Advocate Mahboob Alam Inayat, along with advocates Furkan Ali Mirza and Naresh Kumar. The respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and a team of advocates including Anukalp Jain, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, and others.
