Chhattisgarh High Court news: Underlining that condonation of delays is an exception and not the rule or a matter of right, the Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a criminal revision plea filed by the state after a delay of 219 days against a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) order acquitting two minors of abetting a person’s suicide.
Justice Rajani Dubey rejected the state’s plea, noting that the only explanation offered was that the delay happened because of the time-consuming procedure.
“Condonation of delays is an exception, not the rule, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right or anticipated privilege by the government entities. The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few,” the Chhattisgarh High Court’s May 4 order said.
Justice Rajani Dubey said the only reason the state mentioned with regard to the delay was that it took some time to get the appropriate sanctions.
The order added that the application for condonation of a 219-day delay was without any merit.
Abetment of suicide
The two minor respondents were accused of charges under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 (common intention).
On November 21, 2019, the Juvenile Justice Board passed an order and acquitted both of them of the aforementioned charges.
Law casts its protection equally: Court
The court observed that government departments are under a special obligation to discharge their duties with due diligence and commitment. “The law casts its protection equally upon all litigants and cannot be distorted to confer undue advantage upon a select few,” the Chhattisgarh High Court said.
Story continues below this ad
Highlighting that the state had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause warranting the condonation of an inordinate delay of 219 days, it pointed out that the only reason assigned was that “it took some time for the state to obtain sanction etc, from the highest authorities of the state for preferring this revision.”
State, multi-functional body
The state’s counsel, advocate Jitendra Shrivastava, submitted that the state, being a multi-functional body, had to follow proper procedures, such as obtaining necessary sanction and approvals from the competent authorities, which naturally took some time.
It was contended that the delay, if any, in filing the present revision was not intentional or due to negligence, but occurred because of procedural requirements.
Shrivastava added that the state had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and with that, the counsel prayed that the delay of 219 days in preferring the criminal revision be condoned.
Story continues below this ad
10-year delay in filing review plea
In March, the Allahabad High Court came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government for filing a review petition after an inordinate delay of nearly 10 years, terming the conduct of state authorities “shocking”, “reprehensible”, and an abuse of the process of law, while summoning key officials in this regard.
A bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan was, on March 18, hearing the state’s review plea seeking to revisit a 2016 high court judgment that had upheld the Meerut district judge’s order setting aside the competent authority’s decision under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
The Allahabad High Court noted that the plea was reportedly filed after a delay of 3,525 days and found the explanation offered by the state to be casual.
“This kind of conduct of officers of the State is shocking and reprehensible inasmuch as the State is supposed to act fairly and should not indulge in any unnecessary litigation. This review petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law by the State authorities inasmuch as the sole object of the State authority appears to be to keep the matter pending in order to avoid the compliance of the order passed by this Court,” the Allahabad High Court noted in its order.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
Justice Rajani Dubey said the only reason the state mentioned with regard to the delay was that it took some time to get the appropriate sanctions.