個案總覽

This case discusses the evolution and role of India's nuclear regulator - the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). It examines the need for a regulator in the context of India's nuclear energy programme, its roles and responsibilities, and issues / concerns pertaining to its independence and transparent decision making. The case focusses on key questions such as: What is a regulator or a regulatory agency? Why are regulators important, specifically within the nuclear sector? What is meant by the independence of a regulator? What are the types of regulator independence? How are these ascertained?

The cases of Standard Chartered v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005), Iridium India v. Motorola Inc & Ors. (2011), and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation represent a significant development in India's corporate criminal liability jurisprudence. Standard Chartered reconciled mandatory imprisonment (as prescribed for punishing many offences under Indian law) with the impossibility of imprisoning corporations, Iridium explained whether corporations are capable of committing crimes which require intent (mens rea), and Sunil Bharti Mittal clarified whether the liability of a corporation for a criminal act can be attributed to its directors/promoters.

The 1984 Bhopal gas leak tragedy remains unprecedented in any corporate history. The judgement in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Warren Anderson & Ors. rendered in 2010 laid down standards which remain relevant even today for determining the liability of directors arising out of criminal negligence in cases of accidents in hazardous industries.