A recent ruling reported by Verdictum reaffirmed that when a writ petitioner approaches a High Court alleging violation of a fundamental or public-law right, the respondent authority's objection that another forum would be more "convenient" rarely succeeds. The court held that once part of the cause of action arises within a High Court's territorial jurisdiction and a public-law wrong is alleged, the private-law doctrine of forum non conveniens has little application.
This turns on Article 226, which lets a High Court issue writs where the authority is located or where the cause of action, wholly or partly, arises — a constitutional "cause of action" test, not a discretionary convenience-balancing exercise. Article 32 similarly gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights. Since writ jurisdiction flows directly from the Constitution (unlike ordinary civil jurisdiction under Articles 245/246), it cannot be curtailed by a private-law doctrine devised for commercial/cross-border litigation. Article 141 binds all High Courts to the settled cause-of-action test.
Remember: forum non conveniens originated in private international law for civil/commercial disputes; it does not readily transplant into constitutional writ jurisdiction against the State. Key hooks for exams: Articles 226, 32, 141, 245-246, and the cause-of-action test as the real determinant of writ forum, not convenience.