The Calcutta High Court held, in the case of Sheikh Rahamtulla, Sajid, Burhan Sheikh, Surot Ali & Ors. Vs. National Investigation Agency that a delay of more than 90 days in appealing a decision under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act of 2008 (NIA Act) cannot be allowed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 

The rules addressing restrictions under the second provision of Section 21(5) of the NIA Act are “plain, clear, and unambiguous” in forbidding the reception of any petition beyond the lapse of 90 days, according to Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi. As outlined in the NIA Act, 2008, it is aimed at creating a national investigation agency to investigate and prosecute offences affecting Indian sovereignty, security, and integrity. In order to “facilitate an effective trial and expeditious disposition of the cases governed by it,” the NIA has waived multiple provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Calcutta High Court has noted that opinions within legal precedents on this matter are divided, where in cases such as Nasir Ahammed v. National Investigation Agency (2015), the Kerala HC held that the 90-day period within the NIA Act is mandatory. However, the High Courts of Delhi, in its 2019 decision in Farhan Shaikh v. State, and Jammu and Kashmir, in its 2022 judgment in NIA v. 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court Jammu, took different stances.