Jittu Yadavv.State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Exclusion of Section 5 of Limitation Act Must Be Express or by Necessary Implication

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Jittu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 657

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Judgment: May 27, 2026

Area of Law: Criminal Law, Preventive Detention, Limitation Law, Constitutional Law

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows condonation of delay on showing sufficient cause, applies to appeals filed under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2019. The Court ruled that the mere prescription of a limitation period of 30 days in a special statute does not, by itself, exclude the applicability of Section 5. For exclusion to operate, the special law must either expressly exclude Section 5 or must contain a complete and self-contained limitation scheme indicating a legislative intent to make the prescribed period absolute and unextendable. Since Section 9 of the Adhiniyam neither contains restrictive expressions like "but not thereafter" nor creates a self-contained code of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the State Government for adjudication on merits.

Relevant Facts

• The District Magistrate, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, passed an Externment Order dated June 18, 2025, directing the appellant to remove himself from the district for one year under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2019.

• The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the State Government under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam on September 12, 2025, which was beyond the prescribed period of 30 days.

• The State Government dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation on October 3, 2025, without considering the merits.

• The appellant approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which dismissed the writ petition, affirming the dismissal on limitation grounds.

• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.