Delay In Filing Appeal Against Externment Under Chhattisgarh Public Security Act Can Be Condoned Under S. 5 Limitation Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a delay occurred in filing an appeal against an externment order under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“…unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority (under the Adhiniyam) should retain the discretion to condone delay in appropriate cases.”, observed bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision which upheld the dismissal of the Appellant's appeal against the externment order as time barred.

Section 9 of the Adhiniyam prescribes a 30 days' time limit for filing of an appeal against an externment order.

The Court emphasized that in the absence of any prescription of an outer limit or a specific exclusion of the applicability of a general law, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, would apply to proceedings under special statutes.

When the statute only provides the timeline within which the appeal needs to be filed but doesn't contain any outer limit or expression akin to “but not thereafter,” “not exceeding,” or any other restrictive expression indicating that delay beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned, then by a necessary implication, “this indicates that the legislature did not contemplate total insulation from the general law of limitation”, the Court said.

The case arose after the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, passed an externment order on June 18, 2025, directing the appellant to remain outside the district for a period of one year.

The appellant's statutory appeal before the State Government under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam was dismissed as time-barred, as it had been filed beyond the prescribed period of thirty days. The Chhattisgarh High Court subsequently upheld the dismissal.

Before the Supreme Court, the principal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act stood excluded, either expressly or by necessary implication, in proceedings under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna states that where a statute is silent regarding exclusion of delay condonation powers, an interpretation preserving the appellate remedy and advancing substantial justice should be preferred over one defeating the remedy on technical grounds.

“The law of limitation is intended to regulate the exercise of remedies and ensure diligence, but it is not meant to extinguish rights, particularly civil rights, in the absence of express legislative command. Consequently, where the statute is silent on the exclusion of condonation powers, as in the present case, the interpretation that preserves the appellate remedy and advances substantial justice ought to be preferred over one that defeats the remedy on that technicality alone. As noted, this principle will acquire greater significance where the consequences are grave. Denial of appellate scrutiny solely on account of delay, despite sufficient cause being shown, may result in irreversible prejudice, in fact, loss of an appellate remedy itself if the appeal is to be filed even on the thirty first day as the limitation period is only thirty days. Therefore, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority should retain the discretion to condone delay in appropriate cases. Hence, an interpretation that would lean in favour of an appellant who seeks access to an appellate remedy under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam must be made.”, the Court observed.

The Court referred to precedents to explain that unless the operation of the Limitation Act is specifically excluded from the statute, “Section 5 of the Limitation Act operates, and delay in filing the appeal can be condoned upon sufficient cause being shown in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

“…the appeal before the State Government under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam stands restored and shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate on or before 15.06.2026.”, the court held.

Cause Title: JITTU YADAV VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shivank Mishra, ADv. Mr. Suyash Rawat, Adv. Mr. Trevence Shankar Sahu, ADv. Mr. Yogisha Singh Rajput, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Nair, A.A.G. Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Adv.