The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 5 Limitation Act applies to appeals under Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, holding that the special statute does not expressly or impliedly exclude the power to condone delay. As a result, the Court restored an appeal against an externment order and directed the State Government to decide it on merits. Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered the judgment in Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 2911 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4727 of 2026).
Background of the Case
The District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, issued a show-cause notice to the appellant on April 24, 2025, under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. After considering his reply, the District Magistrate passed an externment order on June 18, 2025. The order directed the appellant to remain outside District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for one year.
The appellant challenged the order before the State Government under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on October 3, 2025, because it was filed beyond the 30-day limitation period.
The appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. However, the High Court dismissed the petition on October 16, 2025. Consequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appearing for the appellant, Ashish Kumar Pandey argued that Section 9 only prescribes a 30-day limitation period. However, it does not exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or prescribe any maximum limit for condoning delay.
He further submitted that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act automatically applies because the Adhiniyam contains no express exclusion. Moreover, he argued that an externment order seriously affects the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
State’s Stand
Additional Advocate General Rajat Nair appeared for the State of Chhattisgarh. He argued that several criminal cases, including Excise Act offences, had been registered against the appellant. According to the State, those cases justified the recommendation for externment.
The State also contended that the appellant filed the statutory appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period. In addition, it argued that he never filed a separate application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court framed the main issue as whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, either expressly or by necessary implication, from appeals under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
The Court examined Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act alongside Section 9 of the Adhiniyam. It also considered several earlier decisions, including Garikapati Veeraya, Mukri Gopalan, Hukumdev Narain Yadav, Popular Construction Co., Hongo India Pvt. Ltd., Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Bengal Chemists & Druggists Association, N. Balakrishnan, Pradeep Kumar, Anant Mills, Ganga Bai, and Sita Ram.
The Court clarified that a special statute may prescribe its own limitation period. However, courts cannot presume that Section 5 stands excluded merely because a different limitation period exists. Instead, the legislature must exclude it expressly or by necessary implication.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 9 of the Adhiniyam contains no restrictive phrases such as “but not thereafter” or “not exceeding.” It also does not prescribe any outer limit for condoning delay.
The Court observed that the Adhiniyam is not a self-contained limitation code. It also pointed out that Section 9(4) adopts a general limitation principle by excluding the time required to obtain a certified copy.
Importance of the Appellate Remedy
The Court stressed that an appeal against an externment order serves as an important procedural safeguard. Such an order directly affects a person’s liberty, movement, livelihood, and reputation.
Therefore, in the absence of any clear legislative intent to exclude Section 5, courts should not deny the statutory remedy merely because of a technical delay. The Court reaffirmed that Section 5 Limitation Act applies to appeals under Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam.
Supreme Court’s Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam does not exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Court accepted the appellant’s application for condonation of delay that he filed before the Supreme Court. It then condoned the delay in filing the statutory appeal before the State Government.
Finally, the Court restored the appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam. It directed the State Government to decide the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, on or before June 15, 2026. The appellant must appear before the State Government on June 1, 2026. Consequently, the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court’s judgment dated October 16, 2025.
