The concept of corporate mens rea challenges traditional criminal law, which rests on individual culpability. Courts and legislatures have sought to reconcile this by employing doctrines such as identification, vicarious liability, and aggregation, yet these remain conceptually and practically inconsistent. This paper examines corporate criminal liability through a comparative lens—focusing on the United Kingdom, United States, and India—to highlight gaps in India’s reliance on judicial interpretation absent statutory clarity. The analysis reveals that neither strict identification nor expansive vicarious liability adequately reflects modern corporate realities. The paper proposes a hybrid model, integrating individual culpability with organizational culture and compliance mechanisms. Such an approach would enhance deterrence, promote good governance, and provide doctrinal coherence in attributing criminal liability to corporations, while ensuring fairness and proportionality in enforcement.
