Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Appeal in Ajmer Dargah Blast Case, Condoning Delay Under NIA Act

The Supreme Court has condoned a delay of 1,135 days in an appeal arising from the 2007 Ajmer Dargah blast case, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier dismissal of the complainant’s plea on limitation grounds. The Court issued notice to the State of Rajasthan and restored the complainant’s right to be heard on merits.

The appeal was filed by Syed Sarwar Chishty, Khadim of Dargah Sharif, Ajmer, represented by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). The Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 51829/2025) challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s 2022 order dismissing the complainant’s criminal appeal on the ground that the delay could not be condoned beyond 90 days as per Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

The matter arises from the Ajmer Dargah blast of 2007, in which three persons were killed and several others sustained injuries. In 2017, the NIA Special Court in Jaipur convicted two accused and acquitted seven others.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court, which refused to entertain it, holding that the statutory provision under Section 21(5) imposed an absolute bar on condonation of delay beyond 90 days.

The petition before the Supreme Court contends that such a strict interpretation of the limitation clause violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by arbitrarily curtailing the right to appeal, which forms an intrinsic part of the right to a fair trial and access to justice.

The petitioners argued that the provision must be read harmoniously with constitutional guarantees, and procedural restrictions should not defeat substantive rights, particularly in cases involving grave offences or public interest.

The petition further submits that the differential treatment between appeals in cases investigated by the NIA and those handled by other investigative agencies results in an unreasonable classification and is contrary to the equality clause under Article 14.

The complainant relied on authoritative precedents such as Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Mohd. Abaad Ali v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence, in which the Supreme Court held that the right to appeal and access to a remedy are integral to the guarantee of fair procedure under Article 21.

It was further argued that a rigid application of limitation in cases of terrorism or national security investigations could have the unintended effect of excluding victims from the appellate process and eroding public confidence in the justice system. The petition urged that courts must adopt a liberal approach in construing limitation provisions to advance justice and avoid miscarriage due to technicalities.

The Supreme Court, taking note of the submissions, issued notice to the State of Rajasthan and condoned the delay. By doing so, the Court restored the complainant’s right to pursue the appeal on merits before the competent forum. The order ensures that the grievance arising from the acquittal of the accused is judicially examined instead of being foreclosed on procedural grounds.

The APCR’s legal team included Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, with Advocates Sowjhanya Shankaran, Siddharth Satija, and M. Huzaifa, under the overall coordination of the organisation’s legal division. The association described the development as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that access to justice is not curtailed by rigid procedural interpretations.

The team maintained that the ruling serves as a reminder that constitutional rights and fair trial standards must prevail even in cases governed by special statutes.

Welcoming the order dated November 3, 2025, the APCR observed that the decision would have a wider bearing on how courts interpret limitation under the NIA Act in future appeals. The organisation stated that victims participation is central to the administration of criminal justice and that procedural bars must not silence legitimate voices seeking review of acquittals in serious offences.

The Top Court’s decision to entertain the petition and issue notice marks an important step toward reinforcing the principle that justice should not be defeated by mere passage of time when substantive rights are at stake.

Case Title: Syed Sarwar Chishty v. State of Rajasthan

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar & Sandeep Mehta

Date of Order: November 3, 2025