STRICT LIABILITY IN LAW OF CRIMES
**Author: Anushka Thakur a student at Presidency University, Bangalore
The fundamental notion of criminal responsibility is that an unlawful act- actus reus- must be linked with a wrongful intention. Mens rea is a technical word in criminal law that generally refers to some fault-worthy mental condition, the absence of which on any given occasion negates the condition of crime. It is a crucial component of criminal liability. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, or "the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with guilty intention," is as old as the criminal itself. However, there are some crimes for which a defendant can be convicted even if he did not have mens rea. These are sometimes referred to as strict liability violations.
In the law of crimes, strict liability refers to a legal doctrine under which a person can be held legally accountable for an offense without having to prove intent or mens rea. In other words, regardless of the defendant's mental state or intent, the prosecution just needs to demonstrate that the defendant committed the forbidden conduct to achieve a conviction.
Men's rea for the offense is not necessary to be proven in cases of strict responsibility. In such cases, the accused may be found guilty based on proof of actus reus even though they do not have a guilty mind. English courts have repeatedly concluded that if the legislature has not defined the offense concerning the guilty mentality, the responsibility will be stringent. If the objective of the legislators is to omit mens rea, the criminal will be found guilty without the mental component. Strict liability offenses are typically found in specific legislation such as taxation, traffic offenses, and environmental offenses.
In the case of the State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, the Supreme Court ruled in 1965 that actions that hurt the country's economic situation are punishable by strict responsibility.
The few exceptions to the general norm of mens rea are as follows:
Laws governing public safety and social welfare
Strict liability is frequently used in cases involving rules governing public safety and social welfare, where the emphasis is on maintaining compliance with regulations for the greater good rather than demonstrating intent or mens rea.
The higher the societal threat, the more probable the offense is a strict liability.
Matters concerning public health
If an offense in the field of public health, food, or pharmaceuticals is committed, the offender will face strict liability.
Matters concerning public nuisance
Individuals or entities can be held liable for establishing or maintaining a condition that substantially interferes with public rights or safety, regardless of their purpose or knowledge, in public nuisance prosecutions.
It is crucial to emphasize, however, that not all crimes are strict liability offenses, and the legal system normally distinguishes between strict liability crimes and those in which purpose or knowledge of wrongdoing is required for conviction. The use of strict liability in criminal law differs by jurisdiction, and defendants may have defences available in such circumstances, such as mistake of fact or due diligence.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/strict-liability-offences/
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/strict-liability/
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/strict-liability.php
![Freedom of Speech in India [Indian Supreme court and Law of Sedition]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiGLLUmLKq5Da6xDZplasOZHKRj-jOhWPkoeuy0_Eq757tUpOiHz-xooXwIlAjF0-hmBfi-TtMIv6on_sVgBXVq4wbWwnbsqLOcNX22S8C2aSq-ZuK3vn9wWAx8tXByYOBfwc0hs6b8RJV84YNFG2greouGKjup6g8kN-xVlchW33VHdSSmrhLC1BUEVbGp=w680)
