Sir Salve and Sir Nariman argued on behalf of Sunil Bharti Mittal recently. It is to Mr. Harish Salve’s credit, his ‘neat submission‘ on ‘alter ego’ was accepted.

A man is the alter ego of the company. Sir Salve submitted, “principle of alter ego has always been applied in reverse”. It is not the company that leads to the man (ego to alter ego). The man leads to the company (alter ego to ego). “The acts of individual, who is in control of the affairs of a company and is a directing mind, are attributed to the company” – however – “it has never been a case where for the act of the company, an individual is made accused, unless there is a categorical provision in the statute making such a person vicariously liable or there is enough material to attribute the alleged acts of criminality to the said person.” SC held, “in the present case, the principle is applied exactly reverse.” The principle is ‘reverse alter ego’. The scenario in the present case was ‘reverse, reverse alter ego‘, which was held ‘difficult’ to accept as correct.

_____

First, a corporation is an artificial person with an identity distinct from that of its members. Second, a corporation is merely an abstraction, i.e., an impalpable thing or, as is famously said, a corporation has “no soul to damn and no body to kick”. 

A corporation can be prosecuted for an offence notwithstanding that it carries a mandatory sentence of imprisonment, or requires proof of mens rea. It appears, a corporation cannot be prosecuted only where an offence is punishable with imprisonment alone, or where an offence, by its nature, requires personal malicious intent, such that it is incapable of commission by a corporation at all.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Sanofi India Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [Criminal Appeal No. 4250 of 2026] decided on 07.09.2026.