In a significant ruling on limitation law, the Supreme Court has clarified that appeals under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 are not barred from the benefit of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the absence of express or implied exclusion.
Background
The appellant, Jittu Yadav, was served with a show-cause notice by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara under the Adhiniyam. An externment order dated 18.06.2025 was passed directing him to remain outside the district for one year. His appeal before the State Government was dismissed on the ground of limitation (filed after 30 days). The High Court upheld this dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave and examined whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied.
Key Legal Issue
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is excluded (expressly or by necessary implication) from proceedings under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, which prescribes a 30-day period for filing an appeal against externment orders.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment (Reportable, 2026 INSC 657). The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, condoned the delay, and restored the appeal before the State Government for merits adjudication.
Key Holdings:
- The right of appeal is a statutory and substantive right. While governed by the statute creating it, procedural aspects like limitation are subject to general laws unless specifically excluded.
- Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, provisions of Sections 4 to 24 (including Section 5) apply to special/local laws unless expressly excluded.
- Section 9 of the Adhiniyam merely prescribes a 30-day limitation period. It contains no words like “but not thereafter,” “not exceeding,” or any indication of absolute outer limit. It also does not create a self-contained code excluding general limitation principles.
- The legislature incorporated principles of the Limitation Act (e.g., exclusion of time for certified copy under Section 9(4)), indicating no intent to insulate the provision completely.
- Externment orders have serious consequences affecting Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 rights. Appellate remedy should not be defeated on technical grounds absent clear legislative mandate.
- Reliance placed on precedents like Mukri Gopalan, Hukumdev Narain Yadav, and distinguished cases like Popular Construction, Hongo India, and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (where exclusion was inferred from restrictive language or self-contained schemes).
The Court condoned the delay suo motu and directed the State Government to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Key Takeaways
- In the absence of clear exclusion (express or by necessary implication), Section 5 Limitation Act applies to statutory appeals under special laws.
- Mere prescription of a shorter limitation period does not imply exclusion of condonation power.
- Purposive interpretation favouring access to justice, especially where fundamental rights are affected.
- Externment proceedings, being quasi-penal, require careful scrutiny and procedural fairness.
Case Details
Case Name: Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 657 (Reportable)
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2911 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4727 of 2026) Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 27 May 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 