When Can Ignorance of the Law Be Taken as a Defence

INTRODUCTION- The principle of ignorance of law originated in Roman law. The ignorance of law is based on two maxims i.e. "Ignorantia juris non excusat” which means “Ignorance of law is no excuse”.Although ignorance of fact can be excused, but ignorance of law cannot be excused. The ignorance of the law does not exempt individuals or entities from legal liability. These principles are mandatory for ensuring the rule of law, uniform application and enforcement. There is an assumption that the laws should be publicly accessible, and all individuals should also have a responsibility to know about the legal provisions and legal requirements. In India, most people are not aware Of legal awareness, government actions and accessibility of law.

These maxims are particularly relevant in Tort, where individuals may be held liable for the injuries caused to others due to their negligent actions. But the criminal law doesn’t permit the ignorance of law as a defence and violation of these laws is

punishable which results in penalties, no matter what the crime is or if is there any outcome of such crime or not. Sec. 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code, incorporate the principle of “ignorantia facit doth excusat, ignorantia juris non execusat”, which also provides that an ignorance of fact can be excused and the ignorance of law cannot be excused. This is based on the principle that a man who is mistaken or ignorant about the existence of any effect cannot form the necessary intention to commit a crime and there of not responsible in law for his debts.

There are various judgements which reinforce that the doctrine of ignorance of the law cannot be taken as a Defence in legal proceedings. These rulings highlight the role of legal professionals, legal advisors in advising their clients to ensure full awareness of the legal landscape and producing the risk of violation of the same. Most of the rules clearly state the responsibility of individuals for understanding the law regardless of their level of awareness.

There are some leading cases like R v. Prince and State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans. George in which 'Mistake of fact' and 'mistake of law' were distinguished stating, while the former is excusable, the latter is not.

M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2024)- In this case, a pharmaceutical company director faced legal action under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for exporting a chemical reclassified as a contraband substance. The director claimed ignorance of the reclassification, arguing that the government notification was not adequately publicized. The Court held that the maxim "Ignorance of law is no excuse" as it prevents individuals from ignoring responsibility by claiming ignorance of their legal obligations. It was said that companies engaged in highly regulated industries, such as pharmaceuticals, have a heightened duty to stay informed about relevant laws and regulations.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria (2024)- The Court noted that with the proliferation of digital platforms and increased access to legal information, the expectation that citizens and corporate entities are aware of their legal responsibilities. The courts have held that the responsibility for understanding the law lies with those who are governed by it, regardless of their level of knowledge of law.

Right for Children Alliance v. S Harish Case, 23 September, 2024- Honourable Supreme of Court of India stated in no uncertain terms the principles based on which an accused may take the plea of bonafide ignorance of the law as a valid defence. One of the pleas taken by the accused in this case was that he was not aware of the fact that storing of child-pornography was a punishable offence under Section 15 of the POSCO Act, and the material pertaining to child pornography stored in his mobile phone was due to his awareness of the law accompanied by a bonafide belief that such storage was not an offence and as such he ought not be held liable.

Chandi Kumar Das Karmakar v. Abanidhar Roy, AIR 1965 SC 585, the Court had stated that for a plea of ignorance of law to be taken as a valid defence, such ignorance or mistake of law must be such that which legitimately gives rise to a bonafide belief as to the existence of a right or a claim and a person commits the act on the strength of such right or claim.

CONCLUSION- At last, it can be said that by Enforcing this principle of ignorance of law is not an excuse. Judiciary continues to uphold the integrity of legal system by ensuring that ignorance of law cannot serve as a sealed the gas accountability. This principal ignorance of law is no excuse remains the base of the Indian legal system, which ensures the uniform applicability and enforcement of laws. Supreme Court also tried to reduce the legal challenges by Passing judgements on its excuses. These judgements serve the importance of legal awareness and responsibilities of all citizens and Corporations to remain aware about the government actions and laws unforeseeable in India.