Limitations under Section 36(2) of the Act are extended due to pandemic circumstances, allowing the complaint regarding negligent death to be considered on its merits.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 5th April, 2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 - National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter, "NHRC") in Case No.60/8/11/2022 dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner regarding the negligent death of a two year old child, in limine. The ground for dismissal is that the Appeal is time barred under Section 36(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter, "the Act").

3. In the background of the present case, the incident complained of by the Petitioner took place on 12th September, 2020. The said complaint relates to negligence and seeks compensation in respect of the death of a two year old who succumbed to kidney and brain injuries induced by an allegedly adulterated cough syrup containing diethylene glycol or DEG. The said child was admitted to the hospital in July, 2020, and unfortunately, passed away on 12th September, 2020. Thereafter, the complaint was filed by the Petitioner on 11th March, 2022.

4. Section 36 of The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, reads as under:

"36. Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission.-

(1) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.

(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed."

5. As per the above provision, the NHRC or the State Commission cannot enquire into an incident after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. In the present case, on the strength of Section 36(2) of the Act, the NHRC has declined to entertain the complaint of the Petitioner as the incident took place on 12th September 2020 and the complaint was filed on 11th March 2022. It is six months beyond the one year period.

6. It is noticed that the death of the child took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the limitation period of one year was also during the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, it is relevant to note that the orders of the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:

"5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020