Condonation Cannot Be Claimed as a Matter of Right… What Is Shown Is Not an Explanation but a Lame Excuse: Supreme Court

“Bureaucratic Indifference Has Its Limits: Even Courts Cannot Rescue a Lethargic State” – In a stern rebuke to governmental apathy, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Odisha as time-barred, refusing to condone inordinate delay and calling out “bureaucratic indifference” in unmistakable terms. The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that no “sufficient cause” had been shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the explanation offered by the State amounted to nothing more than a “lame excuse.”

The ruling came in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, arising out of proceedings under Section 24B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 concerning release of grant-in-aid. The Court dismissed the SLP both on account of delay in filing and delay in re-filing, underscoring that the law of limitation binds the Government as much as any private litigant.

A Grant-in-Aid Order That Gathered Dust for Over a Decade

The Respondent, Managing Committee of Namatara Girls’ High School, had approached the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Section 24B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 seeking release of grant-in-aid. By order dated 30 December 2013, the Tribunal directed the State of Odisha and the Director of Secondary Education to release grant-in-aid to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school.

The State preferred an appeal before the Orissa High Court on 16 October 2015. However, the appeal was already time-barred and, significantly, was filed without a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order. For nearly eight years thereafter, the State failed to cure this fundamental defect.

On 26 April 2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal for failure to file the certified copy. Only thereafter did the State “wake up from its slumber,” as the Supreme Court recorded, obtaining the certified copy on 13 February 2024 and filing an application for recall with a plea to condone 291 days’ delay.

On 21 February 2025, the High Court refused condonation, observing that the appeal was inherently defective and that the delay in presentation exceeded 11 years.

Undeterred, the State approached the Supreme Court with a further delay of 123 days in filing the SLP and 96 days in re-filing.

How Elastic Is “Sufficient Cause” Under Section 5?

The central question before the Court was whether the State had demonstrated “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to justify condonation of delay, and whether a liberal approach should be adopted merely because the applicant was a State authority under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The explanation offered by the State in its application was starkly brief:

“It is submitted that the Petitioner… considered the matter and sent it to the law department… The delay in filing the appeal was on account of procedural delay in obtaining approval from the higher authority. The delay caused is not deliberate and intentional.”

The Court was unimpressed.

From Katiji to Living Media – The Shift from Optimism to Strictness

The Bench undertook a detailed survey of precedent, beginning with Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) and G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer (1988), where a justice-oriented and liberal approach was advocated for government litigants.

In Ramegowda, the Court had acknowledged that “Governmental decisions are proverbially slow… encumbered… by procedural red tape,” and that “a certain amount of latitude is… not impermissible.”

However, the present Bench emphasized that judicial tolerance has limits. Referring to Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012), University of Delhi v. Union of India (2020), and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA) (2024), the Court noted a discernible shift towards stricter scrutiny.

Particularly telling was the Court’s reliance on Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Amateur Riders Club (1994), where Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah had cautioned:

“There is a point beyond which even the courts cannot help a litigant even if the litigant is Government which is itself under the shackles of bureaucratic indifference.”

The present Bench observed that “it did not take much time for this Court to lose hope,” and that optimism expressed in earlier liberal rulings had faded in light of persistent administrative apathy.

Explanation vs Excuse: A Critical Distinction

Drawing from Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023), the Court reiterated the distinction between an “explanation” and an “excuse.”

The Bench categorically held:

“Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay.”

On facts, the Court found the conduct of the State of Odisha to be “utterly lethargic, tardy and indolent” not only before the High Court but also before the Supreme Court.

The plea of “procedural delay in obtaining approval from the higher authority” was rejected as insufficient. The Court held:

“The cause sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up.”

Public Policy and Finality: Merits Cannot Override Limitation

The Court reaffirmed that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and exists to ensure finality in litigation. Echoing Pathapati Subba Reddy, it reiterated that the merits of the underlying case cannot be examined at the stage of considering condonation of delay.

Thus, even if the Tribunal’s 2013 order had arguable infirmities, the Court declined to reopen the matter in the absence of sufficient cause for delay.

The Supreme Court rejected the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the SLP. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition stood dismissed as time-barred.

In a clear message to government departments across the country, the Court made it plain that bureaucratic red tape is not a carte blanche for indifference.

As the Bench concluded:

“No cause, much less sufficient cause, has been shown for exercise of discretion in favour of the State of Odisha.”

Date of Decision: 09 February 2026