Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit | Courts Must Invoke Equitable Principles To Exempt E-Filing Delays Caused By System Failures: Supreme Court

"When the system of the court/tribunal fails to receive the papers, which are sought to be presented bona fide and within the prescribed time, the litigant cannot be rendered remediless on the specious ground that the court/tribunal has no power to condone the delay." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a court or tribunal must invoke the higher principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit" to protect a litigant from technical glitches in e-filing systems that cause a filing to exceed statutory limitation periods.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu observed that in an era of increasing judicial digitization, the court cannot strictly adhere to timelines when the fault for the delay lies entirely with the tribunal's own infrastructure.

Registry Report Confirms Technical Fault

The appeal arose from an order of the NCLAT, which had dismissed an appeal by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II as time-barred under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The appellant had attempted to e-file the appeal within the condonable period, but failed due to technical defects regarding OTP deliveries and backend portal failures. A report from the NCLAT Registry itself confirmed that the appellant had made bona fide efforts to file starting from the penultimate day of the limitation period.

Limitation Runs Only When Systems Are Functional

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a litigant should be non-suited by a tribunal's lack of discretionary power to condone delay when the delay is caused by the tribunal's own dysfunctional e-filing system. The bench emphasized that the law of limitation operates under the premise that the forum is accessible to the aggrieved party. The court reasoned that limitation effectively runs against a litigant only when the tribunal is fully functional and capable of receiving the legal papers.

Application Of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit

The Supreme Court clarified that the failure of an e-filing system constitutes an "act of the court," which should not prejudice the litigant. Relying on the principle of "actus curiae neminem gravabit," the court held that tribunals are not precluded from granting exemptions from limitation laws when the fault is attributable to their own infrastructure. The bench noted that while the IBC sets strict timelines, these must be viewed from the appropriate perspective to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Court Rejects Mechanical Application Of Limitation

The bench distinguished the current case from precedents like National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli and Tata Steel Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, which dealt with instances of party negligence or incorrect understanding of the law. Here, the court found that the appellant did not suffer due to laches or ignorance, but due to a system failure at the NCLAT end. Justice Dipankar Datta noted that failing to provide relief in such circumstances would be tantamount to making the litigant suffer for the errors of the judicial institution itself.

"Though the appellant did pray, it was not a case for condonation of delay; rather, what was implicit in the appellant's prayer was that the NCLAT, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, may exempt the period for which the e-filing system was non-functional."

Court Clarifies Nature Of Requested Relief

The Supreme Court explained that the appellant's prayer was not merely for condonation of delay, which the NCLAT correctly noted it lacked the power to grant beyond the statutory limit, but rather for an exemption. By invoking the spirit of Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court stated that the registry should treat the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file as the actual date of presentation. This interpretation allows the court to align technical timelines with the principles of justice.

Restoration Of Appeal For Reconsideration

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the NCLAT's order dismissing the application as time-barred. The court restored the appellant's petition and the associated application for reconsideration by the NCLAT. The NCLAT has been directed to decide whether the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause to condone the delay in light of the technical failure, with the instruction that if the tribunal finds in favor of the appellant, the appeal must be registered and adjudicated in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2026