Chairman Not Liable Without Active Role in Offence: Allahabad High Court Quashes Case Against Wipro's Azim Premji

The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Wipro founder and Chairman Azim Premji in a labour law-related complaint case, holding that a person cannot be prosecuted merely because he occupies a senior position in a company unless there are specific allegations demonstrating his active role in the commission of an offence.

The bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad allowed Premji's petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS) and set aside the February 8, 2017, summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, as well as all consequential proceedings arising from Complaint Case No. 2882 of 2016, insofar as they concerned him. Court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The case against Premji and others pertained to alleged labour law violations connected with a Wipro establishment in Lucknow. The case was based on a complaint from a labor enforcement officer following an inspection of G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited, which is an agency that provides security services. G4S was engaged in providing security to the Wipro office in Lucknow. During an inspection of G4S by a labor enforcement officer, alleged violations of law were discovered and notices were allegedly issued to the Wipro Company and G4S.

Notably, a coordinate bench of the high court via order dated May 29, 2024, quashed the complaint proceedings in another case based on identical facts and circumstances. The present case stood on the same footing.

Challenging the proceedings, Premji argued that he was not involved in the day-to-day functioning of the Lucknow office and that the security services at the establishment had been outsourced to G4S Secure Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. through an agreement executed in March 2015. According to him, the contractor was independently responsible for payment of wages, provident fund, ESI contributions and compliance with labour laws concerning its employees.

Premji further contended that he neither exercised administrative or managerial control over G4S nor supervised its employees. He submitted that he was based in Bengaluru and had no role in the daily operations of the Lucknow establishment. He also argued that the complaint did not disclose any material indicating criminal intent, active participation or statutory vicarious liability on his part.

The high court found that the complaint sought to prosecute Premji solely because he was the Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro. It observed that no specific allegations had been made showing his direct involvement in the alleged violations or linking him to the day-to-day functioning of the Lucknow office.

Court also took note of the outsourcing arrangement with G4S and observed that the agreement placed responsibility for labour law compliance and statutory obligations upon the contractor. The material on record, according to the court supported the applicant's contention that the agency was independently responsible for matters relating to its employees.

Justice Ahmad emphasised that criminal liability cannot be fastened in a mechanical manner merely on the basis of a person's designation. Such liability, court observed, can arise only where the relevant statute specifically provides for vicarious liability or where there are concrete allegations demonstrating the individual's active role and responsibility in the commission of the offence.

The high court was also critical of the summoning order passed by the magistrate. It described the order as "cryptic" and "non-speaking", noting that it had been passed in a proforma manner without discussing the material on record, the ingredients of the alleged offence or the role attributable to Premji. Court further observed that even the relevant statutory provisions had not been properly examined before cognizance was taken.

Reiterating that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter requiring due application of judicial mind, court held that the impugned order failed to demonstrate any satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient grounds to proceed against Premji. Consequently, it allowed the petition and quashed the summoning order and all proceedings arising from it in relation to the Wipro chairman.

Case Title: Azim Premji vs. State of UP

Order Date: May 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Zafeer Ahmad