The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed criminal charges against Azim Premji, the chairperson and founder of Wipro, related to an alleged labour law violation at the company’s Lucknow office. In the case Azim Premji Vs State of UP, Justice Zafeer Ahmad determined that Premji could not be held criminally liable based solely on his position within the company, given the absence of specific allegations indicating his direct involvement in the purported violations.
Legal Rationale for Quashing the Case
Justice Ahmad emphasized that criminal liability should not be imposed mechanically based on a person’s title unless the law explicitly provides for vicarious liability, or unless there are clear allegations showing the accused’s active role in the alleged offense. The court was responding to an application filed by Premji under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash proceedings that were underway in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court in Lucknow, along with a challenge to a summoning order dated February 8, 2017.
Arguments Presented in Court
Premji’s counsel argued that he played no part in the daily operations of Wipro’s Lucknow office. The security services at the location were outsourced to G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited, under a contract dated March 18, 2015. This contract designated G4S as an independent contractor responsible for employee wages, statutory dues, provident fund, ESI, and compliance with labour laws.
Premji further argued that he neither had administrative nor managerial control over G4S nor oversaw its employees. Residing in Bengaluru, he was not involved in the day-to-day activities of the Lucknow office. He also stated that neither he nor Wipro had received any notice regarding the alleged infraction, only learning of the case after bailable warrants were issued.
State’s Position and the Court’s Findings
The State contended that the complaint disclosed an offense and justified the issuance of the summoning order. However, the High Court found that the complaint seemed to target Premji solely due to his designation with no evidence of his active involvement in the Lucknow office’s daily operations. The outsourcing arrangement with G4S was acknowledged, noting the security firm was independently accountable for adhering to labour law obligations.
More Read
The Court criticized the summoning order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as “wholly cryptic and non-speaking,” indicating it was issued in a routine manner without discussing the merits on record, the alleged offense’s components, or Premji’s specific role. Furthermore, the Court noted that the statutory provisions under which the case was filed were not adequately addressed.
Court’s Final Decision
The decision to summon an accused in a criminal matter is significant, requiring the Magistrate to apply judicial scrutiny to the case facts and available evidence before proceeding. The Court also highlighted that a similar case was quashed by a coordinate Bench in May 2024 under identical circumstances. Concluding that the continuation of proceedings against Premji would be an abuse of the court process, the High Court granted his plea, annulling the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings.
Advocates Karunanidhi Yadav and Prateek Pal Singh represented Premji, while Additional Government Advocate Sanjay Kumar Yadav appeared for the State.
