Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 September 2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Extension of limitation period for legal proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation.
Case Name: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
Judgment Date: 23 September 2021

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2021
Citation: Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao, J., Surya Kant, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of extending limitation periods for legal proceedings due to the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. This order was passed to provide relief to litigants who were unable to file cases within the prescribed time limits due to the pandemic-related restrictions and disruptions. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice Surya Kant, delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread disruptions, making it difficult for people to file legal cases within the stipulated limitation periods. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of the matter. On 23 March 2020, the Court initially ordered an extension of the limitation period for all proceedings before courts and tribunals, effective from 15 March 2020, until further orders.

As the situation seemed to improve, the Court modified its order on 8 March 2021, excluding the period from 15 March 2020 to 14 March 2021 for calculating limitation. It also provided that in cases where limitation expired during this period, a 90-day extension from 15 March 2021 would be granted. However, a second wave of COVID-19 cases necessitated further intervention.

The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) filed Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021, requesting the restoration of the initial order of 23 March 2020. On 27 April 2021, the Court restored the order of 23 March 2020, extending the limitation period until further orders, while also clarifying that the period from 14 March 2021, would be excluded for calculating limitation under various acts.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initially took suo motu cognizance of the issue of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After the initial order of 23 March 2020, the Court modified its stance on 8 March 2021, providing specific dates for exclusion of limitation and a 90-day extension. However, the second wave of the pandemic led to SCAORA filing an application to restore the original order. This led to the order of 27 April 2021, restoring the extension of limitation. Finally, on 23 September 2021, the Court disposed of the miscellaneous application, providing final directions on the matter.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India to pass these orders. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice, while Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within India. The court also considered the provisions of Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which prescribe specific periods of limitation.

The Court noted that the initial order of 23 March 2020 was passed in view of the extraordinary health crisis. The subsequent orders were aimed at balancing the need to provide relief to litigants with the gradual restoration of normalcy.

The relevant legal provisions mentioned in the judgment are:

• Article 141 of the Constitution of India: “The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: “The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it…”
• Section 23(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: This section deals with the time frame for making an arbitral award.
• Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: This section deals with the time limit for arbitral proceedings.
• Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: This section deals with pre-institution mediation and settlement in commercial disputes.
• Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: This section deals with the dishonour of cheques.

Arguments

The Supreme Court heard arguments from the Attorney General for India, the Election Commission of India, SCAORA, and other advocates. There was a consensus that the initial order of 23 March 2020, which extended limitation indefinitely, was no longer required.

Mr. Vikas Singh, representing the Election Commission of India, argued for the restoration of the 8 March 2021 order with a modification. He contended that the 90-day limitation period should be calculated from the date the original limitation expired, not from 15 March 2021. He submitted that the period of limitation prior to 15.03.2020 has to be taken into account and only the balance period of limitation should be made available for the purpose of filing cases.

The Attorney General for India argued that paragraph 4 of the 8 March 2021 order, which allowed regulated movement in containment zones for legal purposes, should be continued.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issue was whether to continue the extension of limitation granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and, if not, how to calculate the limitation period going forward.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court relied on its powers under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It also considered the provisions of Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• The Court used its powers under Article 142* read with Article 141* of the Constitution of India to pass orders for extending the limitation period.
• The Court also considered the provisions of Section 23(4)* and Section 29A* of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A* of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138* of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for which the limitation period was excluded.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s primary concern was to balance the need to provide relief to litigants affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with the need to restore normalcy in legal proceedings. The Court took into account the submissions of various parties, including the Attorney General and the Election Commission of India. The Court also considered the fact that the situation was near normal and that the indefinite extension of limitation was no longer required.

The court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The legal considerations included the court’s powers under Article 142 and 141 of the Constitution, and the need to interpret the various statutes. The factual considerations included the near-normal situation and the submissions of the parties.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered various alternatives, including continuing the indefinite extension or modifying the 8 March 2021 order as suggested by Mr. Vikas Singh. It rejected these alternatives because the situation was near normal and the 8 March 2021 order was a one-time measure. The Court decided to exclude the period from 15 March 2020 to 2 October 2021 and to provide a 90-day extension from 3 October 2021.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The COVID-19 situation was near normal, and the indefinite extension of limitation was no longer required.
• The order dated 08.03.2021 was a one-time measure in view of the pandemic and the Court was not inclined to modify it.
• The Court wanted to provide a clear and consistent approach to calculating the limitation period.

The Court stated, “In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded.” It further clarified, “In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021.” The Court also directed, “The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state… Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to balance the interests of litigants with the need to restore normalcy. The Court also wanted to provide a clear and consistent approach to calculating the limitation period.

The decision has significant implications for future cases. It clarifies how limitation periods should be calculated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also provides guidance on how to balance the need to provide relief to litigants with the need to restore normalcy.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced. The Court’s decision was based on existing legal principles and the specific circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Takeaways

• The period from 15 March 2020 to 2 October 2021 is excluded for calculating limitation periods in all legal proceedings.
• If the limitation period expired between 15 March 2020 and 2 October 2021, a 90-day extension from 3 October 2021 is provided.
• The government is directed to amend guidelines for containment zones to allow regulated movement for legal purposes.
• This order applies to all courts and tribunals in India.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Government of India to amend the guidelines for containment zones to allow regulated movement for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time-bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the period from 15 March 2020 to 2 October 2021 shall be excluded for computing limitation in all legal proceedings and that a 90-day extension from 3 October 2021 will be provided in cases where the limitation period would have expired during the excluded period. This order modifies the previous position of law by providing a final date for exclusion of the limitation period.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in M.A. No. 665 of 2021 provides much-needed clarity on the extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. By excluding the period from 15 March 2020 to 2 October 2021 and providing a 90-day extension from 3 October 2021, the Court has ensured that litigants are not unduly prejudiced by the pandemic-related disruptions. This order also directs the government to amend guidelines for containment zones to allow regulated movement for legal purposes.