Corporate Manslaughter and the Limits of Criminal Liability: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and India

Corporate manslaughter falls on the borderline between two conflicting logics of the criminal law – a body of law designed to deal with individual moral actors and a corporate personage whose actions depend on multi-level decision-making. This paper looks at the approach taken by the United Kingdom and India to solve this conflict and achieve consistency between the logic of criminal liability and organisational fault. While the United Kingdom abandoned the common law identification doctrine, which made prosecution of large corporations virtually impossible, adopting a ‘senior management’ test, India continues to apply the general provisions on homicide contained in its criminal code, supported by regulation and civil liability, failing to introduce a corporate manslaughter offence at all, which becomes particularly evident in the case of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. By analysing judicial rulings, legislation, and academic sources from both countries, it can be argued that although the 2007 Act is a significant step in the right direction, its limited scope and dependence on individual criminal responsibility concepts make it insufficient as a deterrent; and that in India there is no comparable law to protect victims of industrial disasters. The article concludes with proposals for legislative reform in India informed by, but not duplicating, the UK model, and suggests refinements to the UK framework itself