The High Court Said Go Somewhere Else. Article 226 Said It Had To Hear Him.
A dismissed constable filed in Delhi because that is where the office he was suing sits. The High Court declined on convenience. The Supreme Court held that is rarely open under Article 226(1).
The doctrine of forum non conveniens was misapplied in the context of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. That article permits a writ petition to be filed according to the situs of the office of the respondent. Where a constitutional remedy is being pursued and the writ jurisdiction invoked is traceable to Article 226(1), the doctrine may rarely apply. The Union of India is fastened with liability for enforcement, following a three-judge bench in Shri Ranjeet Mal.
- Situs of the respondent's office founds jurisdiction. Article 226 permits filing on that basis.
- Clause (1) is the key. Where the invocation is traceable to Article 226(1), forum non conveniens rarely applies.
- Convenience is not a filter for constitutional remedies. That is the misapplication the Court identified.
- The Union carries the liability for enforcement, on the authority of a three-judge bench.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice DIPANKAR DATTA, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 630
- Reported
- [2026] 7 S.C.R. 220
- Case
- CIVIL APPEAL/8452/2026
- Decided
- 8 June 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
What happened
A BSF constable contracted a second marriage without the permission of the competent authority while his first marriage subsisted, and was dismissed from service.
He filed a statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules seeking reinstatement, which the Inspector General at Frontier Headquarters, Jammu rejected. He then challenged both the dismissal and the rejection by writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
The Division Bench dismissed it on the ground of forum non conveniens, and dismissed the review petition too.
Why that was wrong
Article 226 permits a writ petition to be filed according to the situs of the office of the respondents. That is a jurisdictional fact, not a matter of convenience.
Where the question is one of pursuing a constitutional remedy and the invocation of writ jurisdiction is traceable to clause (1) of Article 226, the doctrine of forum non conveniens may rarely apply. Its use here was a misapplication.
The Court also relied on a three-judge bench decision in Shri Ranjeet Mal for the proposition that the Union of India is fastened with the liability for enforcement of an order.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a High Court decline a writ petition because another court is more convenient?
Rarely, where the remedy is constitutional and the jurisdiction is traceable to Article 226(1). The Supreme Court held the doctrine was misapplied here.
Where can I file a writ petition against a central government office?
Article 226 permits filing according to the situs of the office of the respondents.
Who is liable for enforcement?
The Union of India, on the authority of a three-judge bench decision in Shri Ranjeet Mal.
Choosing where to file a service writ against a central force
- Found jurisdiction on the situs of the respondent's office and plead it expressly in the petition.
- Say in terms that the invocation is under Article 226(1), because that is what makes forum non conveniens a rare answer.
- Where a constitutional remedy is at stake, meet the convenience objection head on rather than conceding a transfer.
- Join the Union of India where enforcement will be sought against it.
Authorities the Court relied on
- , — Three-judge bench; the Union of India is fastened with the liability for enforcement of an order.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 630, [2026] 7 S.C.R. 220, CIVIL APPEAL/8452/2026, decided 8 June 2026 by Justice DIPANKAR DATTA, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in