List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr. (2026), held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens has limited application in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that where a writ petition is filed invoking jurisdiction under Article 226(1) — that is, on the basis of the situs of the respondents' office — the doctrine would rarely justify a High Court in declining to exercise jurisdiction.  

• The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order that had refused to entertain a BSF constable's writ petition on the ground that Delhi was not the forum conveniens, and restored the petition for consideration on merits.

What was the Background of Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India & Anr. (2026)  Case? 

• The case arose from disciplinary proceedings against Baksish Ahmad, a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF). 
• A show-cause notice was served on him alleging violations of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 
• Having failed to submit a reply within the prescribed period, he was dismissed from service by the Commandant. 
• His statutory petition under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules was subsequently rejected by the Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Jammu. 
• The constable challenged both orders before the Delhi High Court. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that the relevant events had occurred either in West Bengal, where the dismissal order was issued, or in Jammu and Kashmir, where the statutory petition was rejected. It concluded that Delhi was not the forum conveniens and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to approach the appropriate High Court. 
• The constable challenged this order before the Supreme Court, relying on the decision in Abrar Ali v. CISF, where the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(1) had been upheld on the ground that CISF headquarters were located in Delhi.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On territorial jurisdiction under Article 226: The Court held that Article 226(1) enables a High Court to issue writs against any authority located within its territorial limits. Since the Union of India and the Director General, BSF — both necessary parties — had their offices situated in Delhi, the Delhi High Court was competent to entertain the writ petition. The existence of alternative forums did not displace this jurisdiction. 
• On the limited application of forum non conveniens in writ proceedings: The Court held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been misapplied in the context of writ jurisdiction referable to Article 226. The doctrine permits a court with jurisdiction to decline to hear a matter if another forum is more appropriate, but its application in constitutional writ proceedings is rare and must be approached with considerable caution. 
• On the distinction between Article 226(1) and 226(2): The Court clarified that Article 226(1) confers jurisdiction based on the situs of the respondents' offices, while Article 226(2) confers jurisdiction based on where the cause of action arises wholly or partly. Where jurisdiction is traced to clause (1), the doctrine of forum non conveniens would rarely apply. 
• On access to justice in certiorari proceedings: The Court observed that in proceedings seeking a writ of certiorari, the relevant records are ordinarily available with the respondent authorities and can readily be produced before the court. A litigant who has chosen a forum on the basis of the respondents' location should not be directed away from it, as such an approach could impede rather than advance access to justice. 
• On the legal principles laid down: The Court summarised the following propositions: 
  • The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not ordinarily apply when a litigant invokes writ jurisdiction under Article 226(1) on the basis of the respondents' location within the High Court's territorial limits. 
  • Where the jurisdictional basis is the situs of the respondents' offices, the existence of other forums with concurrent jurisdiction does not justify refusing to exercise jurisdiction. 
  • In certiorari proceedings, records can be called for from the respondents' offices and produced before the court; logistical considerations cannot override the petitioner's choice of forum in such cases. 
  • Applying the doctrine in such circumstances would be self-defeating and would deny access to justice rather than advance it. 
• Accordingly, the Delhi High Court's judgment was set aside and the writ petition was restored for adjudication on merits.

What is the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens? 

Meaning: 

• Forum non conveniens is a common law legal principle that allows a court to dismiss or stay a case when it believes that another forum is more appropriate for hearing the matter, even if the court itself has jurisdiction over the case and the parties.  
• The term is Latin for "inconvenient forum." 
• It plays a critical role in private international law, where courts frequently deal with cross-border disputes involving multiple jurisdictions. 

Historical Origins: 

• The doctrine has its origins in Scottish law and was later adopted in common law countries including England, the United States, Canada, and Australia.  
• In English law, it was first affirmed in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd (1987), where Lord Goff provided a comprehensive framework for its application. 

Key Considerations — Private Interest Factors: 

• Convenience of parties: location, ease of travel, and financial considerations. 
• Location of witnesses and evidence: if the majority of evidence or witnesses are located in a foreign jurisdiction, the court may be inclined to apply the doctrine.  
• Cost of litigation: if the cost of litigating in the current forum is significantly higher, the court may favour dismissing the case in favour of a more economical venue.

Key Considerations — Public Interest Factors: 

• Administrative burden on the court: courts may dismiss a case to avoid overburdening their docket, especially if the case has minimal connection to the jurisdiction.  
• Application of foreign law: if the case involves the application of foreign law, the court may determine it is better suited to be heard in a forum familiar with that law. 

Adequate Alternative Forum: 

• The defendant must demonstrate that an alternative forum exists where the case can be adequately heard — that forum must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter and must provide the plaintiff with an adequate remedy. 

Deference to Plaintiff's Choice: 

• Generally, courts give significant weight to the plaintiff's chosen forum; this deference is diminished when the plaintiff is foreign.

What is Article 226 of the COI? 

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part V of the Constitution which puts power in the hand of the High Court to issue the writs. 
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purpose. 
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, or government, or authority -  
  • Located within its jurisdiction or 
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks.  
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government. 
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. 
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”. 
•  It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh of the Supreme Court of India issued detailed guidelines governing the psychological assessment of children involved in parental custody disputes. The Court held that family courts must not subject children to psychological evaluation unless it is strictly necessary, and that the psychological condition of the parents must be assessed first before any such evaluation of the child is ordered. The Court also directed that if evaluation of the child is found unnecessary or undesirable, it must not be conducted.

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The matter arose from a custody dispute in which the Bombay High Court had directed the psychological evaluation of a minor.  
• A panel of experts had been constituted on the High Court's orders to evaluate both the child and the parents, with the aim of facilitating restoration of contact between the father and the minor. 
• The High Court passed orders to this effect on April 27, 2023 and December 7, 2023.  
• These orders were challenged before the Supreme Court, which modified both orders and remitted the case to the family court for fresh consideration in light of the guidelines now issued.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On assessment of parents before assessment of the child: The Court held that family courts must first appoint a psychologist to assess the psychological condition of both parents — particularly the parent currently having custody of the child — before deciding whether any psychological evaluation of the child is necessary. The evaluation of the child is to be ordered only if the psychologist's report on the parents indicates its necessity. 
• On dispensing with child assessment: The Court directed that no psychological assessment of the child should be conducted if the family court, on the basis of the psychologist's report regarding the parents, finds such assessment to be unnecessary or undesirable. 
• On the manner of child evaluation: Where evaluation of the child is found necessary, it must be carried out by an independent child psychologist, in consultation with any psychologist already treating the child. The assessment must involve minimal interaction so as not to disturb the child's mental condition. 
• On the evolving nature of a child's psychological needs: The Court emphasised that family courts must remain conscious that a child's psychological needs change with age and may require periodic review and assessment. 
• On parental alienation and false memory: The Court directed family courts to examine concerns such as parental alienation and the risk of false memory creation, and to ensure that the child is not exposed to any influences that may foster such tendencies. 
• On the continuing nature of custody disputes: Highlighting its role as parens patriae, the Court observed that custody and visitation disputes involving children are inherently dynamic and constitute a continuing cause of action. Parents are at liberty to seek modification of custody or visitation arrangements as circumstances change over time. 
• On pending POCSO proceedings: The Court directed that parties must apprise the family court of the status of any proceedings pending under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) against the respondent, as such proceedings may significantly affect decisions concerning visitation and custody rights. 
• On expert material relied upon: The Court's reasoning drew on a report by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) and the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, which highlighted the complex psychological challenges faced by children caught in parental disputes — including strained parent-child relationships, parental conflict, mental health concerns, maladjustment, school-related issues, and instances of malicious conduct by parents.

What is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae? 

The doctrine of parens patriae (Latin: "parent of the nation") refers to the inherent power and authority of the State to act as a guardian for those who are unable to protect their own interests, including minors and persons of unsound mind. 

Application in Custody Matters: 

• In child custody disputes, courts exercise jurisdiction as parens patriae, meaning the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount and override the competing claims of either parent. 
• Indian courts have consistently held that the welfare of the child is the first and paramount consideration in custody matters, not the legal rights of the parents. 

Statutory Basis: 

• The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, particularly Section 17, requires a court appointing a guardian to be guided primarily by the welfare of the minor. 
• Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are similarly bound by the welfare principle. 

Key Principles: 

• The State, through its courts, may intervene in private family arrangements where the welfare of a minor is at stake. 
• Custody and visitation orders are not final and can be modified as the circumstances of the child and parents evolve over time. 
• The child's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being are all relevant considerations in determining welfare.