LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 630Decided 9 Jun 2026
C.A. No.-008452-008453 - 2026 (@ SLP (Civil) Nos. 855-856/2026)
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant, a Border Security Force constable, was dismissed from service without pension after a Court of Inquiry found he had contracted a second marriage without permission while his first marriage was still subsisting (he was exonerated of a separate allegation of abducting the woman he later married). He challenged the dismissal in the Delhi High Court, but a Division Bench declined to decide the case on merits, instead invoking the doctrine of "forum non conveniens" to hold that Delhi was not the appropriate forum since the disciplinary action, an earlier related petition, and the marriage itself all connected to other states (West Bengal, Jammu & Kashmir/Ladakh, and Uttar Pradesh). His review petition was also dismissed, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition (since the respondent Union of India's offices are located in Delhi, satisfying Article 226(1)), and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, borrowed from ordinary civil litigation where a defendant argues a more convenient court exists, was misapplied to a writ petition invoking constitutional remedy jurisdiction based on the respondent's location. The Court reasoned that where a litigant has himself chosen a forum convenient to the respondent, and where the relevant records are readily available with the respondent's office, refusing to exercise jurisdiction on convenience grounds would deny access to justice rather than serve it. It therefore set aside the Delhi High Court's order, allowed the appeal, dismissed as not maintainable the connected appeal against the review-dismissal order (since no appeal lies from dismissal of a review petition), and directed the Delhi High Court to decide the original writ petition on its merits, giving the respondents two months to file a counter-affidavit.

Lesson Learnt

A citizen who files a writ petition against the Central Government in the High Court where that government's offices are located cannot ordinarily be turned away on "convenience" grounds alone: the forum non conveniens doctrine has limited application to constitutional writ remedies and should not be used to deny access to justice.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case