The legal doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to determine that another court may be more suitable for adjudicating a case. This is typically employed when a court determines that it is not the most suitable jurisdiction to handle a lawsuit based on factors such as the location of the events, evidence, and witnesses, as well as the applicable laws. Therefore, the case may be transferred to a more convenient or appropriate court.

The renowned principle of forum non conveniens in private international law allows courts to use their discretion in dismissing or delaying cases that are deemed unsuitable. This doctrine favours defendants but is disadvantageous for plaintiffs. As the world becomes more globalized and the economy modernizes, there is an increase in multinational corporations (MNCs).

When applied to MNCs, this doctrine serves as a hindrance to holding parent companies accountable for actions committed in the host country. However, various efforts have been made to address this issue and regulate the behaviour of MNCs. Unfortunately, these attempts have been ineffective due to their lack of mandatory enforcement.

The legal principle of Forum Non Conveniens allows a court to reject the jurisdiction over a case if it deems that another forum, within the same country or a different one, would be more suitable and just for resolving the dispute. This doctrine is based on principles of fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy.

When a defendant invokes forum non conveniens, they are essentially arguing that the court where the case was first filed is not the most convenient or appropriate forum. The court then takes into account various factors to determine if it should dismiss the case in favour of another forum. These factors may include the location of witnesses and evidence, the convenience of the parties, the applicable law, and the interests of justice.

The main aim of this doctrine is to prevent undue hardship on parties and witnesses, avoid unnecessary litigation costs, and promote the efficient administration of justice. However, courts use caution when applying forum non conveniens to ensure that the plaintiff's access to justice is not unfairly restricted and that the chosen forum is not being used as a tactic to avoid liability or delay proceedings.

Forum non conveniens is commonly used in cases involving international parties or when the dispute has connections to multiple jurisdictions. It allows courts to have flexibility in ensuring that cases are heard in forums that are best suited to effectively and fairly resolve them.

Criticism:
Opponents of forum non conveniens argue that this legal doctrine can be manipulated by defendants, particularly large corporations or powerful entities, as a means to avoid responsibility and prolong the legal process. By seeking to transfer cases to foreign jurisdictions with less stringent legal standards, weaker procedural safeguards, or limited avenues for seeking justice, defendants may exploit forum non conveniens to their benefit. Furthermore, critics maintain that this practice disproportionately affects plaintiffs, particularly those with limited financial means or facing imbalanced power dynamics. Transferring cases to foreign jurisdictions can impose significant practical and financial hardships on plaintiffs, such as higher litigation expenses, language barriers, and difficulties in enforcing court rulings.

Moreover, opponents assert that forum non conveniens can undermine the fundamental principles of fairness and consistency in the legal system. By allowing courts to dismiss cases based on subjective evaluations of convenience or efficiency, this doctrine may lead to contradictory outcomes and diminish public trust in the judiciary. In general, critics argue that forum non conveniens can be exploited as a means to hinder access to justice, disadvantage plaintiffs, and undermine the integrity of the legal process. In response, proposals have been made to reform or restrict the use of forum non conveniens in order to address these concerns and promote fairness and equity in litigation.

Examples:

• In the scenario of an international contract dispute, let's say a French company and a Japanese company have entered into a contract for the sale of goods. However, if a dispute arises and the French company files a lawsuit in France, the Japanese company may argue that Japan is a more appropriate forum due to the majority of evidence and witnesses being located there. In this case, a French court may apply the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens and dismiss the case in favour of Japan.
   
• Now, let's consider a hypothetical environmental pollution lawsuit where residents of a small town in the United States have filed a lawsuit against a multinational corporation based in the U.S. The residents allege that the corporation's factory, located in a developing country, is responsible for environmental pollution in their town. If the corporation argues that the case should be heard in the country where the factory is located, as the pollution and its effects primarily occurred there, a U.S. court may invoke the principle of forum non conveniens and dismiss the case, allowing it to proceed in the country where the pollution took place.
   
• The concept of Forum non conveniens was created to address the inconvenience caused by multinational corporations engaging in international forum shopping. This practice allows plaintiffs to file lawsuits in multiple countries, choosing the one that offers the most favourable damages against the parent company. This has led to a situation where forum shopping has become the norm, making it easy for corporations to avoid accountability.
   

A notable example is the 1987 Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster in Bhopal, India, where thousands were killed and injured by a lethal gas leak. The Indian government filed a complaint in New York on behalf of the victims, as the Indian courts did not have jurisdiction over the parent company, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC).

However, the US district court dismissed the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, deeming it an inconvenient forum. The court explained that in order to promote the administration of justice, cases should be heard in the most convenient court. The decision was upheld on appeal, with the court noting that the key components of the plant were manufactured and operated by Indians in India, making the Indian courts the most appropriate forum for the case.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565