Role of Mens Rea in Civil Offences or Breaches

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 223, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether mens rea is an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations.

 

LAWS THAT INVOLVE BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS

 

There are many laws such as SEBI Regulations, Employee Provident Fund Act, Foreign Exchange Regulations, Taxation Laws, economic crimes, environmental laws, food adulteration laws etc. that provide for imposition of penalties and fines in cases where there are breach of statutory civil obligations by a person. These offences or breaches are not criminal offences in real sense but the same are prohibited by way of penalties and fines in the interest of public welfare.

 

 Such statutory obligations are per se not criminal in nature, yet their breach attracts levying of fines and penalties. In this case, the Court examined that whether a guilty mind or intention or mens rea is required to be proved before imposing any such penalties or fines.

 

BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATION V. MENS REA

 

According to Corpus Juris Secundum, “a penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.”

 

Taking cue from this definition, it was noted by the Court that what applies to ‘tax delinquency’ equally holds good for breach of other civil obligations as well. Therefore, unlike in criminal cases, where it is essential for the prosecution to establish that the accused had the necessary guilty intention or mens rea to commit the alleged offence, in cases of civil obligations, the mere breach or contravention would be sufficient to attract the penal provisions involving imposition of fine, without any further proof of the existence of mens rea. The intention of the legislature in such cases is that the penalty should serve as a deterrent to discourage repetition of the offence or breach.

 

According to the Court, “the word ‘penalty’ by itself will not be determinative to conclude the nature of proceedings being criminal or quasi-criminal. The relevant considerations being the nature of the functions being discharged by the authority and the determination of the liability of the contravener and the delinquency.”

 

It is pertinent to note that the civil breaches or offences are not part of the general penal law but arise from the breach of duties that are provided in various special or beneficial legislations, that per se do not create absolute or strict liability without any proof of mens rea. In such cases, “the omission or commission of the statutory breach is itself the offence” and the penalty gets attracted as soon as the contravention is established making the intention of the delinquent party wholly irrelevant. What is to be noted is that “unless the language of the statute indicates the need to establish the presence of mens rea, it is wholly unnecessary to ascertain whether such a violation was intentional or not.”

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

 

Thus, in conclusion, following important points emerge: -

 

a. Mens rea is essential or sine qua non for criminal offence.

 

b. “A straitjacket formula of mens rea cannot be blindly followed in each and every case.”

 

c. “The word ‘penalty’ by itself will not be determinative to conclude the nature of proceedings being criminal or quasi-criminal.”

 

d. Mens rea is not essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. And;

 

e. “There can be two distinct liabilities, civil and criminal, under the same Act.”

 

Thus, I hope that the role of mens rea in civil breaches or offences is clear by now.