Abstract
The rising participation of businesses in hazardous industries has led to an increased risk of massive deaths caused by organizations. Though the law of India acknowledges corporate criminal responsibility in theory, the lack of a corporate manslaughter provision leads to significant gaps in accountability, most notably exemplified by the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. This paper critically analyses the legal shortcomings in India in bringing corporate bodies to account for death caused by their wrongful actions.
By conducting a comparative analysis of the UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, this paper evaluates the viability of such legislation as a suitable model in shifting the focus of culpability from individuals to the organization. The paper argues that the use of identification doctrine in India remains ineffective in ascertaining criminal responsibility in complex and diffused corporate entities. Using the UK approach as a foundation, this paper suggests the formulation of a bespoke corporate manslaughter law in India that adheres to doctrinal consistency yet conforms to its institutional realities.
Keywords: Corporate Manslaughter, Corporate Criminal Liability, Corporate Homicide Act 2007, Organizational Fault, Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Indian Criminal Law Reform, Comparative Criminal Law.
Introduction
The increasing dominance of corporations in the economic landscape has correspondingly enhanced their ability to cause extensive harm. Industrial accidents, pollution, and work related deaths often occur not due to individual malfeasance but rather due to systemic organizational deficiencies that cannot easily be dealt with using traditional concepts of criminal law. The question raised here is whether there exists a proper method of attributing criminal liability to an artificial person whose acts have caused death. Traditional criminal law, founded upon the principle actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea[1], assumes that there is a natural person who could commit an act coupled with a guilty mind. However, corporations being both non human and devoid of physical capacity[2] make them an odd entity under the classical model. Even while the personality of corporations is well known within the realm of private law, its use for attributing criminal liability[3] faces difficulties. India’s exposure to organizational negligence reached its zenith with the infamous Bhopal Gas Disaster of 1984 an incident that brought to light the inability of the legal system to impose any form of criminal liability against a company causing mass death. While there has been judicial acknowledgement of the concept of corporate criminal liability[4], the lack of statutory backing makes prosecution extremely difficult and fails to provide sufficient remedy to the victims. Contrastingly, the United Kingdom has enacted the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, creating a new legislative model focusing on organizational fault and liability over individual accountability a much needed change in keeping up with the modern corporate milieu. The purpose of this paper is to argue that India’s legal system lacks an institutional structure conducive to the prosecution of corporate manslaughter[5]. Using the UK as a point of comparison, the argument will suggest a path forward through necessary statutory reforms.
[1] Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part 30 (2d ed. 1961).
[2] H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and Responsibility 181–82 (2d ed. 2008).
[3] Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.).
[4] Standard Chartered Bank v Directorate of Enforcement
[5] Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007