Madras High Court Rules High Courts Lack Authority to Extend Appeal Deadlines Beyond Limits Set by NIA Act

The Madras High Court ruled on Wednesday that it lacks authority to condone delays in filing appeals under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, beyond the timeframe specified in Section 21(5) of the Act, thus overturning a previous ruling that allowed condonation for delays if appeals were filed by the accused. This decision came in the case of Union of India and Another v. Abdul Razaak and Another, where Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam rejected the NIA’s request to condone a delay in appealing a special court’s decision to grant bail to two accused. The bench dismissed the NIA’s appeals on limitation grounds and deemed a prior judgment in Buhari @ Kichan Buhari v. State—which had granted condonation of delays for the accused but not the prosecution—to be unsound law. The NIA argued that such an approach was biased and detrimental to the State’s interests, asserting that if condonation is permitted, it should apply equally to the prosecution and the accused. However, the court clarified that the law under Section 21(5) does not allow separate interpretations for the accused and the NIA, adding that a distinction in condoning delays based on appellant type contradicts established rules of interpretation. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, the High Court emphasized that clear, unambiguous legislative intent in Section 21(5) cannot be reinterpreted. It further noted that without a challenge to the constitutionality of the Act’s provisions, the court must apply the law as written, affirming that Section 21(5) provides no room for extending the limitation period. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan and Special Public Prosecutor R. Karthikeyan represented the NIA, while Advocate Abdul Basith appeared for the accused.