ignorantia juris non excusat
Everyone is presumed to know the law of the land, so a person cannot escape liability by saying he did not know his act was illegal. The BNS general exceptions protect only mistakes of fact (ss.14 and 17), not mistakes of law. In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1964) the Supreme Court held a foreigner liable for bringing gold through India in breach of a notification he had not known of, holding that mens rea did not require knowledge of the law.
In contract, s.21 of the Indian Contract Act provides that a contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force in India; but a mistake as to a law not in force in India has the same effect as a mistake of fact. The maxim does not stop a person relying on a genuine dispute about private legal rights, such as title to property.
Example
A trader who sells goods above the notified price cannot plead that he had not read the notification, since ignorantia juris non excusat.
In Indian law
- Section 21, Indian Contract Act, 1872
- State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, 1964 INSC 176
See also
ignorantia facti excusat · mistake · mens rea
Read more in the study notes
- General exceptions: mistake, accident, necessity and incapacity (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
- Mistake (Contract I)
- Methods of study: lectures, textbooks, the case method and technical terms (Legal Methods)
- Obedience to law: a legal duty, its need and importance, and why people obey (Political Science - State and Political Obligations)