Delhi High Court Judgment: Territorial Jurisdiction in Writ Petitions – Applying the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens to Prevent Forum Shopping and Ensure Judicial Efficiency

---

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner’s disqualification from employment in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The Court ruled that it lacked territorial jurisdiction because the impugned order was issued in Tamil Nadu. Applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Court held that merely because the CISF headquarters and the Ministry of Home Affairs are located in Delhi does not mean the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction. The Court declined to entertain the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.

---

Facts

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 23.12.2024, which declared him unsuitable for employment in CISF.
2. The order was issued by the Commandant, CISF, RTC Arakkonam, District Ranipet, Tamil Nadu.
3. The petitioner resides in Uttar Pradesh, but he chose to file the petition in Delhi on the ground that the office of the Director General, CISF, and the Ministry of Home Affairs are located in Delhi.
4. The Court questioned the petitioner on why he filed the case in Delhi when the order was passed in Tamil Nadu.
5. The Court dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds, stating that the presence of a government office in Delhi does not justify invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

---

Issues

1. Does the Delhi High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition?
2. Is the presence of the CISF headquarters and the Ministry of Home Affairs in Delhi sufficient to invoke jurisdiction?
3. Does the doctrine of forum non conveniens apply in this case?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner justified filing the writ petition in the Delhi High Court based on the following arguments:

• Cause of action partly arose in Delhi since the head office of CISF and the Ministry of Home Affairs are located in Delhi.
• The petitioner relied on Article 226 of the Constitution, which provides that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction if part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
• The petitioner claimed that since policy decisions regarding CISF employment are made at the Director General’s office in Delhi, this provided a valid ground for the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction.

---

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondents did not appear before the Court.
• The Court analyzed the matter based on legal principles and precedents without requiring submissions from the respondents.

---

Analysis of the Law

1. Meaning of ‘Cause of Action’ in Writ Petitions

The Court referred to the well-established legal principle that “cause of action” means a bundle of facts that a petitioner must prove to succeed in a case. The Court clarified that cause of action does not depend solely on where the relief is sought but on where the material facts leading to the dispute arose.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction in Writ Petitions Under Article 226

• Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India states that a High Court may issue writs if the cause of action arises, wholly or partly, within its territorial jurisdiction.
• However, the Court emphasized that a trivial or insignificant part of the cause of action arising in a jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that the High Court must hear the case.

3. The Doctrine of ‘Forum Non Conveniens’

• This doctrine applies when a court has jurisdiction but is not the most appropriate forum to decide the case.
• The Court held that the primary cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu, not Delhi, as the order was issued in Tamil Nadu.
• It reaffirmed that a small part of the cause of action arising within a jurisdiction is not enough to confer jurisdiction if another forum is more appropriate.

4. Administrative Presence vs. Jurisdiction

• The Court emphasized that just because a government office is located in a particular jurisdiction does not mean that the High Court of that jurisdiction automatically gets jurisdiction.
• The decision to reject the petitioner’s employment was taken in Tamil Nadu, so the case should be filed in the High Court of that state.

---

Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on established principles in similar cases, where:

• A writ petition can only be entertained where the primary cause of action arises.
• Merely because a government office is situated in a particular state does not automatically give the High Court of that state jurisdiction.
• Courts have consistently ruled that applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens ensures that cases are heard in the appropriate jurisdiction, preventing forum shopping.

---

Court’s Reasoning

1. The impugned order was issued in Tamil Nadu and the petitioner resides in Uttar Pradesh.
2. The decision to declare the petitioner unsuitable for CISF employment was taken by an authority in Tamil Nadu, meaning the primary cause of action arose there.
3. The fact that CISF headquarters and the Ministry of Home Affairs are in Delhi is irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes, as the dispute pertains to an order passed elsewhere.
4. The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies, making the Tamil Nadu High Court the appropriate forum.
5. The Delhi High Court, in exercise of judicial discretion under Article 226, declined to entertain the case.

---

Conclusion

• The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
• It held that the Tamil Nadu High Court is the appropriate forum.
• The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the correct jurisdictional High Court, ensuring his right to seek redressal.

---

Implications

1. Strengthening the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

This ruling reinforces the doctrine of forum non conveniens, preventing petitioners from choosing a court based on convenience rather than jurisdiction.

2. Clarifying the Scope of ‘Cause of Action’ in Writ Petitions

The judgment clarifies that a cause of action does not arise merely because an administrative office of a government entity is present in a jurisdiction. The actual cause of action must arise within the High Court’s territorial limits.

3. Preventing Forum Shopping

• Forum shopping occurs when petitioners file cases in a jurisdiction that they believe will be more favorable to them, even when the dispute primarily arises elsewhere.
• This judgment acts as a deterrent against forum shopping by reaffirming that the correct jurisdiction is based on where the dispute substantially arose, not on the petitioner’s preferences.

4. Ensuring Judicial Efficiency

• By dismissing cases that lack territorial jurisdiction, courts can focus on cases that genuinely belong within their jurisdiction, ensuring judicial efficiency.
• This prevents unnecessary case backlog and ensures that disputes are adjudicated in the most appropriate forum.

Also Read – Supreme Court Upholds Dissolution of CMJ University: Declares Chancellor’s Appointment Invalid Without Mandatory Visitor Approval and Affirms State’s Compliance with Section 48 of CMJ University Act, 2009