On January 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark ruling in the case of Sanjay Dutt & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., reaffirming the principle that directors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable for a company's illegal actions unless specific legal provisions impose such liability.
Key Takeaways from the Judgement
- No Automatic Vicarious Liability
The Supreme Court emphasised that merely being a director does not make an individual liable for a company's offences. Liability can only be imposed if the individual had direct involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. - Requirement of Specific Allegations
The Court clarified that in order to hold a director vicariously liable, there must be clear and specific allegations indicating their role in the illegal act. A generalised claim that a director was responsible for the company's affairs is insufficient. - Statutory Provisions Governing Liability
The ruling highlighted that directors cannot be automatically presumed liable - vicarious liability in corporate offences is governed by specific legal provisions. For instance, statutes such as the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Companies Act, 2013, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, contain clauses explicitly outlining when directors can be held accountable. - Burden of Proof on the Accuser
It was reinforced that the burden lies on the complainant to establish that the director had active participation in, or knowledge of, the wrongdoing. Mere designation as a director is not sufficient grounds for prosecution.
Implications of the Judgement
- Protection Against Unjustified Prosecution
This ruling provides relief to directors who are often unnecessarily dragged into legal proceedings due to their association with a company. - Encouragement of Corporate Governance
While directors are not automatically liable, the judgement reinforces the importance of due diligence and active participation in company affairs. - Clearer Legal Precedents
The decision strengthens corporate law jurisprudence in India, setting a precedent that liability cannot be imposed arbitrarily.
Conclusion
This ruling reaffirms that vicarious liability of directors is not automatic and must be established through specific legal provisions and factual evidence. It marks a significant development in corporate law and will likely shape future litigation to protect individuals from unwarranted legal action solely based on their position in a company.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
