The original rule is that ignorance of the law does not prevent it from being applied to those who are ignorant of it, and it is not permissible to excuse ignorance of the law to escape its rule. This rule is justified by the fact that adopting the opposite of it leads to chaos and the collapse of the law, and thus the justification for this rule is almost mixed with the justification for the existence of the law itself.
It is established that it is not permissible to excuse ignorance of the law from any person to achieve the idea of equality before the law. However, it is noted that the idea of equality in subjection to the law is not fully achieved in the modern era. Rather, it is surprising that if ignorance of the law comes from a person specialized in the law, then there is no penalty. Accordingly, judges sometimes issue their rulings out of ignorance of the law. However, the right holder cannot seek compensation from the judge who issued the wrong ruling, as judges are not responsible for their mistakes in applying the law, whereas if ignorance of the law comes from a non-specialist, there is no forgiveness for him.
