Delhi HC Jurisdiction in CAPF Dismissal Cases

Case discussed: Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 INSC 630, Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856 of 2026 (Supreme Court of India, decided 9 June 2026)

In June 2026 the Supreme Court held that under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution of India, a High Court possesses full territorial jurisdiction if the person or authority against whom relief is sought has its seat / office located within its territorial limits, irrespective of where the cause of action arose.

A Bench comprising of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled in favour of the appellant, holding that the Doctrine of forum non conveniens rarely applies in writ jurisdiction in matters related to Article 226 (1) where invocation is based on the situs of the respondent office. When a litigant files a writ choosing the forum convenient to the respondents (where the concerned administrative records are located or can be easily be called for), applying the Doctrine of forum non conveniens is self – defeating and denies access to justice.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was enrolled as a Constable in the Border Security Forces (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSF’)and was posted in the 44^th Battalion at Narayanpur, Malda, West Bengal. A Staff Court of Inquiry ( hereinafter referred to as ‘SCoI’) was constituted following a missing report and a formal complaint by the first wife of the appellant. The appellant and another constable were suspected of abduction, and the appellant had contracted a second marriage against the will of the first wife and subjected her to criminal force. The SCoI concluded that the appellant had married a second time while his first marriage subsisted without the permission of the competent authority or divorce from his first wife.

The appellant was subsequently served a show cause notice under Rule 22 and 177 of the BSF Rules 1969, alleging violation of Rule 7 of those Rules and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As the appellant failed to respond within 15 days, he was dismissed from service without pensionary benefits.

He filed a statutory petition under Rule 28A. It was placed before the Inspector General. Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu who condoned the delay but rejected it on merits. The appellant then filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Delhi High Court.

Ruling of Delhi high court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noted that the appellant was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and that dismissal was issued in West Bengal and his statutory petition was rejected in Jammu & Kashmir. The Court applied the Doctrine of Forum Non-Conveniens and dismissed the petition holding that merely because the offices of the Director General, BSF and Ministry of Home Affairs were located in Delhi, it did not make the Delhi High Court the convenient forum when no part of the cause of action arose there. The appellant had filed for a review petition which was dismissed. He later filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Court’s reasoning and how it can affect you

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeal. The Court reasoned that Article 226 (1) confers jurisdiction on a High Court within whose territorial limits the person or authority against whom relief sought has its office or seat, irrespective of where the cause of action arose. The Court further clarified that Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India enables a High Court to exercise its jurisdiction if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territorial limits. The Court noted that while three other High Courts (Calcutta, J&K and Ladakh and Allahabad) possessed jurisdiction under Article 226 (2), the Delhi High Court was fully competent as a fourth forum under Article 226 (1) due to its situs of the Director General BSF and the Ministry of Home Affairs in New Delhi.

It was also held that when an aggrieved litigant chooses a forum that is directly convenient to the respondents, declaring such forum “inconvenient” is self – defeating and denies constitutional access to justice. It later further clarified that the doctrine of forum non conveniens rarely applies when constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226(1) is invoked based on the situs of the respondent’s office.

For a quick reference we can compare the Courts’s holding on Where an Appellant can File the case, vis-a-vis the conclusion of the High Court.

Reference	Article 226 (1)	Article (2)
Basis	Office of the person or authority against whom the writ is sought is within the High Court’s territory	Cause of action arises wholly or in part within the High Court’s territory.
High Court (in this case)	Delhi High Court (Union of India and Director General, BSF at New Delhi)	Calcutta High Court (for show cause notice and dismissal); Allahabad High Court (marriage and residence of the appellant); Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Rule 28A petition rejected here), all three High Courts had jurisdiction here.
Supreme Court (in this case)	Delhi is the “fourth forum” with competence to hear the petition.	All three are empowered to grant adequate relief if a strong case on merits is made out.

The rules cited in this case

Rule 7, BSF Rules 1969: A person with a living spouse who marries again or who marries someone with a living spouse, is ineligible for appointment into the Force. The Central Government can exempt a person if the marriage is permissible under the personal law that applies and there are other grounds.
Rule 22 (1) – (3), BSF Rules 1969: Prior to termination of the service of a person other than an officer, the competent authority has to give a chance of show cause. The notice gives an opportunity for representation and explanation and can only be dispensed with after a conviction or where the authority records why the show cause is not expedient or practicable.
Rule 28A, BSF Rules 1969: A petition against an order or termination can be filed to the Central Government, the Director General or the Inspector General depending on rank, within three months of the order or its receipt, whichever is later. Any person covered by the BSF Act who is aggrieved by a termination order may file a petition under this Rule.
Rule 177, BSF Rules 1969: The Commandant may dismiss or remove from service any person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate officer.
Rule 21, CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964: A Government Servant must not marry a person who has a living spouse or marry anyone while having a living spouse unless the Central Government permits it.

how can this judgement help you

If you have received an order dismissing or removing you from service, you can file a petition under Rule 28A to a senior authority as applicable in your case. Provided the petition is dismissed you can file a writ petition before a High Court. A writ petition under Article 226 can help you to pray before a High Court to set aside the order.

Most CAPF personnel are posted far from Delhi and such termination order against them is passed usually where they serve. In the present case the appellant was posted in West Bengal, was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and his Rule 28A petition was rejected in Jammu. He had filed before the Delhi High Court because the Union of India and Director General, BSF (two necessary parties to such matters) are in New Delhi. Thus,

You can approach the Delhi High Court even if your dismissal order was issued far away. The Delhi High Court has the power to adjudicate your case if the offices of the necessary parties are located in New Delhi.
The Supreme Court held that doctrine of forum non conveniens may not apply to your case. A court should not turn away a case just on the grounds of convenience of forum.
The Court also noted that the papers a High Court needs to examine, herein the orders which you want to challenge, are usually placed in the respondent’s office. This would weaken the argument that Delhi is an inconvenient jurisdiction to hear the cases.
Your case is heard on its merits. In the present case the petition was revived so that the Delhi High Court can decide whether the dismissal was lawful.

Hence this judgement can help you in the following situations:

If you were dismissed while being posted someplace else and you want to challenge the order in Delhi;
Your Rule 28A petition was rejected by an authority in another State;
A High Court refused your writ only because it thought another High Court was more convenient;
You have received a show cause notice;
You are in the Army, Navy or Air Force or were removed after a Security Force Court Trial.

In light of this, the judgement does not say that your dismissal or the appellant’s was wrong. It rather helps you revive your petition for the High Court to adjudicate your case on merits. It does not give you more time. It does not discuss limitation for filing a writ. The Inspector General condoned the delay in the appellant’s Rule 28A petition, but that was one authority’s decision in one such case. The judgement also does not decide whether Rule 28A must be used before a writ. This is also limited to administrative orders of termination of CAPF members. In short, this judgement tells a dismissed CAPF member that the Delhi High Court is a forum one can consider for an administrative termination, wherever such an order was passed. The termination’s results would depend on the merits of your case.

what should a capf member do?

Respond to every show cause notice within the given time and keep proof of service and of your reply.
File the statutory petition under Rule 28A on time and address them to correct authorities.
Choose a High Court wisely. Delhi is available for administrative terminations, while other High Courts may also be open depending on where the cause of action arose.
Keep your records together, including your notice of dismissal, inquiry report, the dismissal orders and rejection of your petition.

Post curated with assistance from Sombuddha Paul, School of Law, BML Munjal University

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s):

Can a BSF member file a writ petition against dismissal in the Delhi High Court?

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction in light of Article 226(1), because the Union of India and the Director General, BSF have their offices in New Delhi.

Does this apply to other Central Armed Police Forces?

Para 27 of the judgment covers any member of the CAPF, including the BSF, by reference to the Union of India and the officer in whom supervision and command of the Force vests. Check the Force’s own rules for details.

What kind of orders does it cover?

Administrative orders of termination of service issued by the competent authority. It does not speak to other kinds of service disputes.

Does the order have to be issued in Delhi?

No. The Court held that the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction even if the order was issued, or the events occurred, outside its limits.

Can the Delhi High Court still refuse on the ground of forum non conveniens?

The Court said the doctrine may rarely apply where Article 226(1) is invoked, and held it was misapplied in this case. It did not rule out its use altogether.

What is the doctrine of forum non conveniens?

A court that can legally hear a case may decline if another forum is more appropriate, and it generally applies where more than one forum is available.

What is Rule 28A and who should you petition?

It is the statutory petition against termination. Officers petition the Central Government, Assistant Sub-Inspectors and subordinate officers to the the Director General and enrolled persons to the Inspector General, within three months of the order or its receipt, whichever is later.

Is this a binding precedent?

It is a reportable judgment of the Supreme Court.