The old corporate testament of 1956 has been pushed into the annals of history, beginning the All Fools Day this year. 282 vital sections of the new company law have been made effective, giving vent to a modern, resilient regulatory testament.
The new law assumes directors and key management personnel to be the sentinels of governance. It seeks to put in a quandary the questionable independence of independent directors.
A host of rulings by various courts in India in the past have established that a corporate body can be prosecuted and penalised, yet not be imprisoned! But will the new law permeate down to the decision makers harboured behind the facade of a corporate body? The attribution of criminality to the “officer who is in default” is established under section 2(60) of the Companies Act, 2013. He shall be liable to penalty or imprisonment.
The new Act craves to implicate every director, who is “aware” of any contravention. He need not even participate in any meetings of the board, but if the information as to a contravention is contained in any of the proceedings of the board received by him, he is deemed liable.
Without doubt he is liable, too, in case he participates in such proceedings without objecting to a contravention, or where such contravention has taken place with his consent or connivance. The intent of law here seems to entice an independent director to turn a whistleblower.
A mere awareness of a contravention makes a director liable to penal action, and it’s ironical the law seems to turn a blind eye in protecting the whistleblower. Even though section 2(60) says “for the purpose of any provision in this Act”, it is debatable whether it will ringfence the liability of a director to a contravention under company law.
The responsibility of a director under this umbrella law could in all possibility be cited in proceedings under several other laws (like FEMA) wherein a director’s responsibility to comply is specifically enshrined.
In Iridium India Telecom Limited vs Motorola and others (2011), the Supreme Court observed that a corporation is virtually in the same position as an individual, and may be convicted of common law as well as statutory offences, including those requiring mens rea.
The court reiterated its earlier position in Standard Chartered Bank vs Directorate of Enforcement that a company is liable to be prosecuted and punished for criminal offences, even though the criminal act is committed through its agents.
The apex court, thus, recognises that a legal persona needs agents to conceive and execute malice. Now, the penal section oft-repeated in the new company law, ie, Section 447. The section seeks to imprison a guilty for a minimum of six months (three years, in case the fraud involves public interest) up to a maximum of 10 years.
‘Fraud’ in relation to the affairs of a company includes any act, omission, concealment of any fact or abuse of position with intent to deceive, to gain undue advantage from, or to injure the interests of the company or its stakeholders. It is difficult for a director to stay clear of all these four intents and prove innocence.