--- title: "Forum Non Conveniens Cannot Override Constitutional Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Article 226(1)" date: 2026-07-30 author: "Bhavika Madnani" url: https://ksandk.com/constitutional/forum-non-conveniens-article-226/ --- # Forum Non Conveniens Cannot Override Constitutional Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Article 226(1) Posted On - 30 July, 2026 • By - Bhavika Madnani ![](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/Supreme-Court-Clarifies-the-Scope-of-Article-2261-.webp) *Why High Courts Cannot Decline Writ Jurisdiction Merely Because Another Forum Appears More Convenient* ## Introduction The power of High Courts to issue writs under **Article 226 of the Constitution** is one of the cornerstones of India’s constitutional framework. It serves as an essential mechanism for [judicial review](https://ksandk.com/constitutional/tribunals-reforms-act-struck-down/), enabling citizens to challenge unlawful executive action and ensuring that public authorities remain accountable to the rule of law. Questions relating to territorial jurisdiction, however, continue to generate considerable litigation, particularly where administrative decisions involve authorities located in different States. In such cases, respondents frequently argue that although a High Court may technically possess jurisdiction, another High Court would be a more appropriate or convenient forum for adjudicating the dispute. In *Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India* (2026)1, the Supreme Court has provided important clarity on this issue by holding that the doctrine of **[forum non conveniens](https://ksandk.com/corporate/judicial-bias-recusal-forum-shopping-standards-judgements/)** cannot ordinarily be invoked to decline writ jurisdiction that is validly attracted under Article 226(1) of the Constitution. The decision draws a clear distinction between jurisdiction founded upon the location of the respondent authority and jurisdiction based upon the place where the cause of action arises. More importantly, it reinforces the principle that **constitutional remedies cannot be curtailed** through discretionary procedural doctrines borrowed from private law. ## The Constitutional Scheme of Article 226 Article 226 confers extraordinarily wide powers upon High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as “for any other purpose.” **Territorial jurisdiction** under Article 226 rests upon two independent constitutional foundations. ### Article 226(1): Jurisdiction Based on Location of the Respondent The first, contained in **Article 226(1)**, empowers a High Court to issue writs against any person, authority or government located within its territorial jurisdiction. ### Article 226(2): Jurisdiction Based on Cause of Action The second, introduced through **Article 226(2)**, extends jurisdiction to cases where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, even if the respondent authority is situated elsewhere. Although these provisions often overlap in practice, they operate on distinct constitutional principles. Article 226(1) focuses on the location of the respondent authority and Article 226(2) focuses on the location of the cause of action. The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores that these **two jurisdictional bases should not be conflated**. ## Understanding the Doctrine of *Forum Non Conveniens* ### Origins and Purpose The doctrine of *forum non conveniens* originated in **private international law** and has subsequently been adopted by several common law jurisdictions. The doctrine permits a court that otherwise possesses jurisdiction to decline entertaining a dispute where another competent forum is demonstrably more appropriate for resolving it. Its purpose is largely pragmatic — to avoid oppressive litigation, minimise inconvenience and ensure that disputes are heard in the forum having the closest connection with the controversy. ### Application in Indian Writ Proceedings Indian courts have occasionally relied upon the doctrine in [civil and commercial litigation](https://ksandk.com/practice-areas/commercial-litigation-law-firm/), particularly where multiple competent forums exist. However, **writ proceedings stand on a fundamentally different footing**. Unlike ordinary civil actions, a writ petition invokes constitutional remedies against the exercise of public power. Consequently, discretionary procedural principles cannot override jurisdiction expressly conferred by the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces this important constitutional distinction. ## The Issue Before the Supreme Court The dispute arose from **[disciplinary proceedings](https://ksandk.com/constitutional/article-3112b-supreme-court-dismissal-enquiry/)** initiated against a member of the Border Security Force. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action before the Delhi High Court. Although the Union of India and the Director General of the Border Security Force — both necessary respondents — were located within Delhi, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. It held that the events giving rise to the dispute had occurred elsewhere and that another High Court would constitute a more appropriate forum. The principal question before the Supreme Court was therefore straightforward but constitutionally significant: > **Can a High Court refuse to exercise jurisdiction validly conferred under Article 226(1) merely because another High Court appears to be a more convenient forum?** ## The Supreme Court’s Ruling The Supreme Court answered the question in the **negative**. The Court held that where jurisdiction is properly attracted under Article 226(1) because a necessary respondent authority is situated within the territorial limits of a High Court, the Court cannot ordinarily decline to entertain the petition solely by invoking the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*. The existence of another High Court that may also possess jurisdiction does not diminish the **constitutional competence** of the first High Court. The Court observed that the doctrine cannot be employed in a manner that effectively defeats a constitutional remedy expressly available under Article 226. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court was held to have erred in refusing to entertain the writ petition. ## Distinguishing Article 226(1) from Article 226(2) Perhaps the most significant contribution of the judgment lies in the Court’s **careful distinction between Articles 226(1) and 226(2)**. Much of the earlier jurisprudence discussing *forum non conveniens* arose in cases where jurisdiction depended upon whether a part of the cause of action had arisen within a particular State under Article 226(2). In such cases, where only a small or incidental part of the cause of action arises within one jurisdiction, courts have occasionally considered whether another High Court bears a closer connection to the dispute. However, the Supreme Court clarified that these principles **cannot automatically be transplanted** into cases governed by Article 226(1). Where the respondent authority itself is located within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court and effective relief is sought against that authority, jurisdiction exists independently of where the underlying events occurred. The constitutional basis of jurisdiction is therefore fundamentally different. ## Why the Judgment Matters The decision has significant practical implications for **[constitutional litigation](https://ksandk.com/category/constitutional/) involving central government authorities**. Many administrative decisions affecting citizens are ultimately approved or implemented by ministries, [regulators, statutory authorities](https://ksandk.com/practice-areas/regulatory-law-firm/) or departmental headquarters located in Delhi or other major administrative centres. Examples include: - Disciplinary proceedings involving armed forces and central services - Decisions of regulatory authorities - Actions of national commissions - Orders issued by central ministries - Immigration and passport matters - Disputes involving autonomous bodies operating across multiple States In many such cases, portions of the factual matrix may arise outside the State where the principal authority is located. The judgment confirms that where relief is genuinely sought against a **necessary authority** situated within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the constitutional remedy cannot ordinarily be denied merely because another forum appears more convenient. ## Reaffirming Earlier Constitutional Principles The judgment also harmonises earlier Supreme Court decisions concerning territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. Cases such as *Shri Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway* and *Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff*2 recognised that the location of the authority responsible for passing, approving or implementing the impugned decision constitutes an **independent constitutional basis** for [invoking writ jurisdiction](https://ksandk.com/constitutional/article-227-supervisory-jurisdiction/). The Court also clarified that observations in *Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India*3 should not be read in isolation. That decision principally addressed jurisdiction founded upon the cause of action under Article 226(2), and its reasoning cannot be extended to dilute jurisdiction independently available under Article 226(1). By drawing this distinction, the Supreme Court has brought **greater coherence** to an area of law that had occasionally generated conflicting approaches before different High Courts. ## Practical Takeaways The judgment provides several important lessons for litigants and practitioners: - Jurisdiction under **Article 226(1) and Article 226(2)** arises from different constitutional foundations and should be analysed separately. - The doctrine of *forum non conveniens* cannot ordinarily override jurisdiction validly attracted under Article 226(1). - The presence of a **necessary respondent authority** within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court may itself provide a sufficient constitutional basis for maintaining a writ petition. - Litigants challenging actions of central authorities should carefully identify the authorities against whom **substantive relief** is sought rather than merely formal respondents. - High Courts should exercise caution before declining jurisdiction on grounds of convenience where constitutional jurisdiction has been properly invoked. ## Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision represents an important reaffirmation of the **constitutional character of writ jurisdiction**. By holding that *forum non conveniens* cannot ordinarily displace jurisdiction validly conferred under Article 226(1), the Court has reinforced the distinction between constitutional remedies and procedural doctrines developed in private law. The judgment also restores clarity to the relationship between Articles 226(1) and 226(2), ensuring that litigants are not denied access to constitutionally competent forums merely because another High Court may have a closer factual connection with the dispute. For litigants, public authorities and constitutional practitioners alike, the ruling serves as an important reminder that **judicial discretion cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines the constitutional architecture of Article 226**. While considerations of convenience may continue to play a role in appropriate cases, they cannot override a jurisdiction that the Constitution itself expressly confers. *Last Updated on 30 July, 2026* Get King Stubb & Kasiva’s legal updates in your Google feed[![Add King Stubb & Kasiva as a preferred source on Google](https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/google_preferred_source_badge_light_en@2x.png)](https://www.google.com/preferences/source?q=https://ksandk.com/) --- ## Office Locations - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com ## Contact - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/) - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190 - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444 - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/) - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)