Approach of Supreme Court Towards Condonation of Delay in Matters of State
The Limitation Act, 1963 {hereinafter referred to as ILA, 1963} has the objective of doing justice and equity with the society and the defendant in a suit, appeal or an application. The public policy behind the Act is to bring legal status and legal relationship of an individual to certainty. Moreover, it is in the interest of society to put an end to litigation followed by the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium.
The ILA, 1963 prescribes the period of limitation for filing every suit, appeal, or application in the schedule of the act. The applicant/ respondent shall file the same within the prescribed time period. However, in cases where the delay is caused in filing the same ILA, 1963 provides for the principle of Condonation of Delay in Section 5 of the ILA, 1963. The provision provides that an appeal or application can be condoned if the party concerned suffices the ‘sufficient cause’ of delay in filing an appeal or application. Extending the application of Section 5 to the cases where the State/Government is a party and causes the delay in filing a suit. It is to be noted that right away the Supreme Court cannot be the walk-in place for the governments to ignore the period of limitation and seek condonation of delay. Here lies the issue where the Government fails as machinery to timely file appeals and petitions. The State cannot be left to act ignorantly. It is necessary to note that delay in filing a suit cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the limitation act, as this section has no application on suits. However, condonation of delay of suits is provided under Order 7 Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
For claiming the benefit of Section 5 of ILA, 1963, the proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent whether the benefit is claimed by a private or by the government bodies but when the applicant is State, the court will take a little lenient approach towards it. The reason behind this is because the state works through impersonal machinery so there are more chances of delay in the case of the state as stated by the Supreme Court in M. Balakrishna v. M Krishna Murthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123.
Further, the imposition of cases on officers for delay causes public injustice and allows the manipulators an opportunity to compound the camouflage and therefore, the word ‘sufficient cause’ is required to be interpreted slightly liberally towards government bodies. But it does not mean that insufficiency can be construed too liberally merely because the party in question is the government.
The Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 849, reiterated that the government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The following points have been emphasized by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment:
- The condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government body.
- Misuse of court latitude and leniency by the state should not be permissible in any case.
- The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of the law.
- Unless there has been a reasonable and acceptable explanation of the delay and bonafide efforts for filing an application within the prescribed period, the benefit will not be allowed.
Conclusively the Apex Court with the recent judgment made it clear that the maxim interest republicae ut sit finis litium is the foundation of the law of limitation, it is based on the consideration of public policy and it should not be diluted for government bodies. Therefore, the law of condonation of delay is an exception, not an anticipated benefit.
Comments