Section 5 Limitation Act Applies To Appeals Under Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam; Externment Impacts Fundamental Rights: Supreme Court

"Appellate remedy constitutes an important procedural safeguard against possible arbitrary or erroneous exercise of power under the Adhiniyam. In such a context, the right of appeal itself is to be treated as an integral component of fair procedure," Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to appeals preferred under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that since the Adhiniyam does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the Limitation Act, the appellate authority retains the power to condone delays in filing appeals against externment orders.

The appellant was subjected to an externment order by the District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, directing his removal from the district for one year. His statutory appeal was dismissed by the State Government solely on the grounds of a 50-day delay, a decision later upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The appellant contended that the Adhiniyam lacks an express bar on condoning delay, and given the impact on fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21, a technicality should not defeat the right to appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded from proceedings under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam. The court was also called upon to determine if the scheme of the local Act intended to create an absolute and unextendable limitation period for challenging externment orders.

Distinction Between The Right To File A Suit And A Statutory Appeal

The Court began by reiterating the settled position that while there is an inherent right to bring a suit of a civil nature, the right of appeal is a creature of statute. Citing Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar (1974), the bench noted that an appeal must have clear authority of law. It further observed that while the legislature can impose conditions on this right, such conditions must not be so onerous as to render the right illusory.

Ratio Decidendi: Applicability Of Section 29(2) Of The Limitation Act

The core of the Court's reasoning rested on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which provides that where a special or local law prescribes a different limitation period, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 shall apply unless they are "expressly excluded." The bench emphasized the ratio that exclusion is not to be inferred merely because a special statute prescribes a distinct period of limitation.

Interpretation Of "Expressly Excluded" In Special Statutes

The Court analyzed several precedents including Hukumdev Narain Yadav (1974) and Hongo India (2009) to explain that "express exclusion" can also arise by "necessary implication" from the scheme of a law. However, it clarified that such an implication must be founded on clear statutory language indicating that the prescribed limitation is absolute and incapable of enlargement.

Adhiniyam Lacks Prohibitive Language Like "But Not Thereafter"

The Court pointed out that unlike the Arbitration Act or the Electricity Act, the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam does not use restrictive expressions such as “but not thereafter” or “not exceeding.” The absence of such a formulation is significant as it indicates that the legislature did not intend to make the 30-day limitation period under Section 9 absolute or to render the appellate authority functus officio upon its expiry.

"The provision neither states that the appellate authority shall have no power to condone the delay, nor employs prohibitive language indicating finality after expiry of the prescribed period."

Externment Orders Involve Serious Civil And Criminal Consequences

The Court laid heavy emphasis on the nature of the remedy, noting that externment orders affect a person's liberty, movement, livelihood, and reputation. It observed that these orders entail serious consequences, and therefore, the right of appeal must be treated as an integral component of fair procedure. Such a right should not ordinarily be defeated on technical grounds unless the statute clearly mandates strict exclusion.

"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."

The Adhiniyam Is Not A Self-Contained Code Of Limitation

The bench further noted that Section 9(4) of the Adhiniyam expressly incorporates the principle of excluding time taken for obtaining certified copies. This indicates that the legislature did not contemplate total insulation from the general law of limitation. Consequently, where a statute is silent on the exclusion of condonation powers, an interpretation that advances substantial justice must be preferred.

The Supreme Court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is fully applicable to appeals under the Adhiniyam. It set aside the High Court's judgment, condoned the delay in the appellant's appeal, and restored the matter before the State Government for a decision on merits by June 15, 2026.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2026