The law succours the ignorant.
This maxim simply means that the law aids ignorance. Here ignorance refers to the want or absence of knowledge.
A Abitha v. Eben jayanth, 2012 SCC Online Mad. 4810
In the judgment of this case justice G. Rajasuria mentioned that “I recollect and call up the legal maxim “Lex succurrit ignoranti””. [The law assists the ignorant]. Ignoring all the important salient features in this case, the lower Court Judge concerned simply set the wife and her alleged guardian exparte and passed the exparte judgment and decree declaring the marriage as a nullity. Even for argument’s sake, it is taken that despite notice having been served on the alleged mentally challenged person and her guardian, none appeared before the Court, yet the duty was cast upon the Court to appoint a fresh Court guardian for the carriage of the case.
Meeker v. Boylan, 28 N.J.Law, 274
In this case court held that the ignorance of a particular fact consists in this: that the mind, although sound and capable of healthy action, has never acted upon the fact in question, because the subject has never been brought to the notice of the perceptive faculties.
Cuibreath v. Culbreath, 7 Ga. 70, 50 Am.Dec. 375
In the judgment of this case court mentioned that “Ignorance” and “error” or “mistakes” are not convertible terms. The former is a lack of information or absence of knowledge; the latter, a misapprehension or confusion of information, or a mistaken supposition of the possession of knowledge. Error as to a fact may imply ignorance of the truth; but ignorance does not necessarily imply error.
Edited by Sree Ramya
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje