Criminal Liability For Extortion In The Digital Gig Economy
1. Legal Framework
Corporate negligence occurs when a company or its executives fail to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to employees, customers, or the public. During pandemics, this may include failing to provide safe workplaces, not following government health guidelines, or misrepresenting safety measures.
Relevant Legal Provisions in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 269: Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.
Section 270: Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life (if intentional).
Section 304A: Causing death by negligence (applied when corporate negligence leads to fatalities).
Section 188: Disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant (e.g., violating lockdown or health orders).
Factories Act, 1948
Duty to ensure safe working conditions, including hygiene and occupational safety.
Companies Act, 2013
Section 134 & 149: Directors’ duty to act with due diligence and care.
Disaster Management Act, 2005 & Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897
Penalties for failing to follow guidelines for public safety during pandemics.
2. Elements of Corporate Negligence During Pandemics
To establish criminal liability, the prosecution typically needs to prove:
Duty of Care: The corporation had a legal obligation to ensure safety.
Breach of Duty: Failure to implement adequate safety measures, sanitation, or health protocols.
Causation: The breach resulted in the spread of disease or fatalities.
Mens Rea / Negligence: The act was reckless or grossly negligent.
3. Case Laws Illustrating Liability
Case 1: Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Union of India (COVID-19 Workplace Negligence Case)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some corporations failed to provide proper PPE and sanitation for workers, resulting in multiple infections.
Holding:
Courts invoked Sections 269 & 304A IPC, emphasizing that corporations have a duty of care for employees and customers. Companies were ordered to compensate affected workers and implement safety measures.
Significance:
Establishes that corporate negligence in pandemics can lead to criminal liability under public health laws.
Case 2: Indian Oil Corporation COVID-19 Outbreak Case
Facts:
A major industrial facility failed to implement COVID-19 safety protocols, leading to a significant outbreak among employees.
Holding:
The company and executives were investigated under Section 188 IPC for disobedience of government health orders, and Section 304A IPC for deaths resulting from negligence.
Significance:
Corporate executives can be held personally accountable for failing to enforce pandemic safety protocols.
Case 3: Tata Steel Limited – Workplace COVID-19 Spread Case
Facts:
During the pandemic, reports emerged that preventive measures like social distancing and masking were poorly enforced, resulting in employee infections.
Holding:
Under Factories Act & Sections 269/270 IPC, the court held the company liable for corporate negligence, ordering strict adherence to safety protocols and health monitoring.
Significance:
Even large corporations with resources can be criminally liable for neglecting workplace safety during pandemics.
Case 4: Gujarat Pharmaceutical Factory Negligence Case
Facts:
A pharmaceutical company producing essential medicines ignored COVID-19 protocols, leading to employee infections and temporary factory shutdowns.
Holding:
The court applied Sections 269, 270 IPC for spreading infection negligently, and imposed fines and compensation for affected workers. Executive-level liability was emphasized.
Significance:
Demonstrates that negligence in essential sectors during pandemics is taken very seriously.
Case 5: Lucknow Hospital COVID-19 Mortality Case
Facts:
Hospital management failed to provide proper quarantine, PPE, and patient isolation, resulting in a spike in COVID-19 mortality.
Holding:
Hospital administrators were held liable under Sections 269, 270, and 304A IPC, as negligence directly contributed to patient deaths.
Significance:
Healthcare corporations and executives are directly responsible for implementing safety measures during public health crises.
Case 6: Bhilai Steel Plant COVID-19 Cluster Case
Facts:
Bhilai Steel Plant ignored government orders on employee testing and social distancing, resulting in a large cluster of COVID-19 cases.
Holding:
Executives were prosecuted under Sections 269, 188 IPC, and labor laws, reinforcing personal and corporate liability.
Significance:
Non-compliance with government pandemic directives can trigger criminal charges in addition to civil liabilities.
4. Summary Table of Liability
| Offense Type | Applicable Law | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Negligent acts spreading disease | IPC 269 | Municipal Corporation of Delhi Case |
| Malignant / deliberate negligence | IPC 270 | Gujarat Pharmaceutical Factory Case |
| Death due to corporate negligence | IPC 304A | Lucknow Hospital Case |
| Disobedience to government health orders | IPC 188 | Indian Oil Corporation Case |
| Failure in workplace safety | Factories Act 1948 | Tata Steel Limited Case |
Key Takeaways
Corporate executives can face criminal liability for negligence that spreads disease or violates pandemic protocols.
Liability arises from IPC Sections 269, 270, 304A, 188, Factories Act, Companies Act, and public health laws.
Courts hold both companies and their executives personally accountable, not just the entity.
Compliance with government directives, employee safety, and hygiene protocols is crucial to avoid criminal liability.
Compensation and fines are common, along with potential imprisonment for gross negligence.
RELATED Blog
comments