Scribd
Upload
106 views2 pages

Can Ignorance of Law Be An Excuse

The document discusses the legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse". It examines the context and limitations of this principle. While ignorance cannot usually excuse a violation of the law, there are some preconditions that must be met for the maxim to be valid. Laws must be promulgated, or published, and also be knowable by those expected to follow them. The intended audience must have the ability to understand the law. Ambiguous laws may not meet the knowability requirement. Ultimately, the document argues that the preconditions for the maxim to apply are idealistic and not always practical.

Uploaded by

Sougata Banik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
106 views2 pages

Can Ignorance of Law Be An Excuse

The document discusses the legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse". It examines the context and limitations of this principle. While ignorance cannot usually excuse a violation of the law, there are some preconditions that must be met for the maxim to be valid. Laws must be promulgated, or published, and also be knowable by those expected to follow them. The intended audience must have the ability to understand the law. Ambiguous laws may not meet the knowability requirement. Ultimately, the document argues that the preconditions for the maxim to apply are idealistic and not always practical.

Uploaded by

Sougata Banik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Can Ignorance of Law be an Excuse 

‘Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat’, just by reading this maxim we immediately understand
that one cannot defend himself by pleading his ignorance of the law. But the question,
which we intend to discuss here is, is this a valid understanding? If Yes, then in what
Context, & If No, then again in what context?
Origin:
It’s a Latin phrase wherein ‘Ignorantia’ refers to Ignorance, ‘Juris’ to Law and ‘Non
Excusat’ to No Excuse. Which means that ignorance of any law cannot be used as
defense for any breach of law. That is, one cannot say that he was unaware of the law
to avoid the liability after breach of that law. The basic intention behind this legal maxim
is to put a check on a person at fault getting freed merely by claiming that he was not
aware of given law.
Preconditions
With an intention to draw some conclusion, lets first discuss what should be the
preconditions to make this maxim valid. The preconditions would be same as they
would be in a case where one writes a letter to another with an intention that the letter
be read and the intended message is understood. Thus, what is required is the
message be first delivered to addressee second the addressee be capable of
understanding (i.e. he should know reading and understands what is written along with
legislative intention). Thus, the preconditions should be ‘Promulgation’ and ‘Knowability’.
‘Knowability’ refers to ability to Know. In given context, one can only decide whether any
law is knowable or not, if that law
1. Is ‘available’ with him to read and
2. that person is capable to understand that law
‘Knowability’ of the law is must to ascertain whether one was negligent on knowing the
law or whether he could not get a chance to know that law at all. This further leads to
generate a requirement to differentiate between Mistake of Law and Ignorance of Law
are one and same. Mistake of law implies that the doer has knowledge of law but that
knowledge leads to wrong conclusion. Whereas, Ignorance of law implies total lack of
knowledge. However, the conclusion in each case is same, i.e. committing an act which
unlawful. Different commentators have different view on considering whether Ignorance
and mistake of law be considered one and same or not.
Whereas, in the scenario where doer is ignorant of law, he lacks the knowledge of the
law as well as absence of mental state. Thus, ignorance of law cannot lead to mens rea.
Courts on this Maxim
1. The Supreme Court in the case of: Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills V. State of U.P.,
AIR 1979 SC 621 – wherein, it accepted the dicta of Maule, J. and Lord Atkin, that while
ignorance of law is no excuse, (a maxim of different scope and application), there is not
and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law.:
Conclusion
The essential public character of a law requires that the law, once properly
promulgated, must apply to anyone in the jurisdiction where the law applies. Public
policy requires that ignorance of law should be no excuse. But there is no presumption
that every-body knows the law, though it is often so stated.
Accordingly, for this Maxim to become valid, promulgation of law is of utmost
Importance. But the requirement doesn’t end here, further, the intended audience must
be enough capable even to understand the legislated law. Further to this, even in case
where the intended audience is capable of understanding, the law must be clear and no
ambiguities should exist (knowability). Thus, these preconditions appear to be quite
idealistic but not practical and so is the Maxim.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy