'There are exceptional circumstances under which mens rea is not required in criminal law'. Discuss.

Mens rea is defined as the mental element necessary to constitute criminal liability. It is the attitude of mind which accompanies and directs the conduct which results in the ' actus reus '. The act is judged not from the mind of the wrong-doer, but the mind of the wrong-doer is judged from the act. ' Mens rea ' is judged from the external conduct of the wrongdoer by applying objective standards. There are many exceptional cases where mens rea is not required in criminal law. Some of them are as follows: Where a statute imposes liability, the presence or absence of a guilty mind is irrelevant. The classical view of that 'no mens rea , no crime' has long been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishment even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea . Many laws passed in the interest of public safety and social welfare imposes absolute liability. This is so in matters concerning public health, food, drugs, etc. There is absolute liability ( mens rea is not essential) in the licensing of shops, hotels, restaurants and chemists establishments. The same is true of cases under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Arms Act, offences against the State like waging of war, sedition etc. Where it is difficult to prove mens rea and penalties are petty fines. In such petty cases, speedy disposal of cases is necessary and the proving of mens rea is not easy. An accused may be fined even without any proof of mens rea . In the interest of public safety, strict liability is imposed and whether a person causes public nuisance with a guilty mind or without guilty mind, he is punished. If a person violates a law even without the knowledge of the existence of the law, it can still be said that he has committed an act which is prohibited by law. In such cases, the fact that he was not aware of the law and hence did not intend to violate it is no defence and he would be liable as if he was aware of the law. This follows from the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.