India's Supreme Court ruled that corporations can be convicted and punished for crimes even if they lack mens rea or face mandatory imprisonment, stating that judicial discretion to impose fines instead of jail terms must be read into such provisions for juristic persons, rejecting Sanofi India Ltd's plea challenging its prosecution in a CBI case involving inflated medicine prices supplied to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.
AI-generated summary
Sanofi India Ltd challenged its prosecution by the CBI in a case involving alleged conspiracy with a BARC officer to procure medicines at inflated prices and excessive quantities, arguing that a corporation cannot be convicted without a natural person being identified as an accused alongside it.
NEW DELHI: A company having no physical body cannot be imprisoned and having no mind cannot possess mens rea (guilty mind), which is essential for conviction in a criminal case. So can a firm be convicted and punished? SC Monday answered the tricky questions by holding that a company can be convicted even when it cannot have a guilty mind of its own and can also be punished, though the punishment of a jail term can be substituted by a fine. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said there is a need to bring a law for corporate criminal liability but said the issue comes within the legislature's prerogative and it cannot be done by a court. It held that a company is not rendered immune to prosecution merely because the offence carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. Referring to a constitution bench ruling, the bench said a judicial discretion to impose a fine alone must be read into such provisions when dealing with juristic persons. "The position under Indian law is thus clear that a corporation can be prosecuted for an offence notwithstanding that it carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment or requires proof of mens rea. It appears that a corporation cannot be prosecuted only where the offence is punishable with imprisonment alone, or where the offence, by its nature, requires personal malicious intent, such that it is incapable of commission by a corporation at all," the bench said. SC passed the order on a plea by Sanofi India Ltd which said a prosecution against a corporation like it, for an offence requiring mens rea, is maintainable only where a natural person has been identified and arraigned as an accused alongside it. It said that corporations alone cannot be convicted and pleaded that proceedings against it should be quashed. Rejecting the plea of the company, the bench said non-identification of the natural person does not, by itself, render the allegations incapable of disclosing the corporation's role in the offence. The case pertains to the supply of pharmaceutical products by Sanofi India to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. As per CBI, a BARC officer had conspired with the company to procure medicines at inflated prices and in quantities exceeding the requirement. A case was registered against Sanofi, which challenged its prosecution on the ground that none of its employees had been made accused and a company alone cannot be prosecuted.
Join conversation
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
"... where the surrounding facts and circumstances, taken as a whole, disclose the possibility that the corporation acted with the requisite mens rea, that disclosure is not defeated merely because no particular individual has been identified as its source. Therefore, the ingredient of mens rea can still be disclosed even where no individual has been identified," the bench said while rejecting the plea of the company.
End of Article
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The Indian legislature will consider enacting a law on corporate criminal liability in response to the Supreme Court's suggestion.
Possible · Within months
The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on whether it has jurisdiction to hear a petition challenging show-cause notices issued by the Maharashtra FDA to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over a chewing elaichi advertisement campaign alleged to be surrogate promotion of banned pan masala. The company PB Agro LLP argues the notices were issued only to brand ambassadors, not the company, and that the pan masala brand has not been sold in Maharashtra since 2001.
The Bombay High Court has ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to pay Rs 5,000 per day to In Vogue Creations for losing original property documents held as loan security. The compensation applies from December 1, 2023, until the bank reconstructs the missing title records.
Mumbai's deputy charity commissioner deregistered a sharia court trust following complaints of illegal marriage dissolutions, highlighting a rising trend of extra-judicial divorces after triple talaq criminalization.
Supreme Court directed the Maharashtra government to immediately arrest politicians involved in assaulting doctors, following an incident where Shiv Sena office-bearers attacked hospital staff in Palghar district.
Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the Trump administration to provide 48 hours' notice before conducting any work at the site of a proposed 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, allowing only archaeological testing while construction remains under legal dispute.
A London court ruled that British resident Ajith Kumar Mupparapu can be extradited to India to face trial over allegations of poisoning his former wife's family with arsenic and plotting to kill her father in Hyderabad.