The Supreme Court of India has recently delivered an important judgment in a case JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH 2024 Live Law (SC) 728 that highlights the limits of claiming "ignorance of law" as a defense, especially when it comes to the possession or storage of child pornography. This ruling serves as a critical reminder that the law is clear, and unawareness of its provisions cannot be used as an excuse to avoid criminal liability.
Case Overview: Ignorance of Law and Child Pornography
In the case Just Rights for Children Alliance vs. S. Harish (Diary No. 8562 - 2024), the accused had been found in possession of child pornographic material on his mobile phone. He argued that he was unaware of the fact that storing or possessing child pornography was a punishable offense under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Additionally, he claimed that the material was automatically downloaded to his phone without his knowledge or intent to possess it.
The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, rejected the accused's defense, reinforcing that "ignorance of law" cannot absolve someone of responsibility for criminal acts, particularly when the law is clear and unambiguous.
The Court’s Ruling: Ignorance of Law Does Not Excuse Crime
The Court unequivocally stated that the defense of ignorance of law is not valid in the case of storing or possessing child pornography. The mere possession or storage of such material, without taking steps to report or delete it, is considered a criminal act under Section 15 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that merely being unaware of the legal consequences of possessing child pornography does not provide a legitimate defense, as there is no reasonable belief or right to store such material.
The judgment emphasized that a person’s ignorance of the law does not give rise to any legitimate claim to possess or store child pornography. The Court stated, "No person of an ordinary prudent mind could, in good faith, believe that there exists a right to store or possess child pornographic material." Even if the accused was unaware of Section 15 of the POCSO Act, this ignorance could not lead him to believe that he had a legitimate right to store such material.
You can also read the latest judgment by visiting [Latest Judgment].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
The Four-Prong Test for the Defense of Ignorance of Law
In its judgment, the Court laid down a four-prong test for when ignorance of the law could be a valid defense:
- There must be ignorance or unawareness of the law.
- Such ignorance must give rise to a legitimate and reasonable right or claim.
- The existence of this right or claim must be believed in good faith.
- The act for which punishment is sought must have occurred based on this right or claim.
According to the Court, for the defense to succeed, the ignorance of the law must be directly linked to a legitimate belief in the existence of a right that justifies the action in question. In the present case, since the act of possessing child pornography could not be considered a right, the defense of ignorance failed.
Unawareness of Law vs. Ignorance of Law
The Court made an important distinction between unawareness of law and ignorance of law. The former is a by-product of the doctrine of equity and may be considered in some circumstances, while the latter is a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence. Under Indian law, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for committing an offense. As the Court stated, "No person can claim to be absolved of liability simply because they were unaware of the law, especially when the law is clear and unambiguous."
In criminal cases, the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse prevails over any argument rooted in equity or unawareness. The Court observed that, even if the accused’s ignorance of the law could be considered a bona fide mistake, it would not absolve him from liability for possessing or storing child pornography.
Conclusion:
This decision serves as a stern reminder that the law is meant to be followed by all, regardless of one’s knowledge or awareness of it, and the judiciary will not allow criminal behavior to be excused on the basis of ignorance.
