Doctrine of Necessity, Meaning, Cases, BNS Section 19 & Limitations

The Doctrine of Necessity is a legal principle that allows actions which are normally illegal to be justified in emergency situations. It is based on the idea that urgent need or crisis may require exceptional measures to prevent greater harm. This doctrine is used when normal laws cannot be followed, and immediate action is necessary to maintain public safety and order. However, it must be applied carefully and only in genuine necessity. 

Doctrine of Necessity

• The Doctrine of Necessity is an exception to the principle of natural justice, especially the rule against bias, which normally requires decisions to be fair and impartial.
• It allows authorities to take necessary actions in urgent or unavoidable situations, even if such actions may not strictly follow the law under normal circumstances.
• This doctrine is applied only when there is no alternative authority available to decide a case, meaning the decision cannot be delayed or avoided.
• In certain cases, if the only choice is between a biased decision or no decision at all, the law permits a biased authority to decide, so that justice is not completely denied.
• The concept has its origins in common law and dates back to the 13th century, where jurist Henry de Bracton stated that what is otherwise unlawful becomes lawful due to necessity.

History of the Doctrine of Necessity

• The Doctrine of Necessity has its origin in the writings of Henry de Bracton, a medieval jurist, who stated that an act which is otherwise unlawful can become lawful if it is necessary. This idea laid the foundation of the doctrine in common law.
• However, even while applying this doctrine, courts have emphasized that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done, meaning fairness should still be maintained as far as possible.
• The doctrine is considered an exception to the principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own case), allowing limited relaxation of the rule against bias in unavoidable situations.
• In India, the doctrine was recognized in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1958), where its application in administrative decision-making was discussed.
• Later, in Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (1996), the Supreme Court refined this concept into the Doctrine of Absolute Necessity, stating that it should be used only when it is completely unavoidable and no other option exists.

‹ ›

Legal Provisions in Relation to Doctrine of Necessity

• The Doctrine of Necessity in India is reflected in Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which forms part of the general exceptions under criminal law. This section provides legal recognition to acts done out of necessity.
• Section 19 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with situations where an act is likely to cause harm, but is done without any criminal intention and in good faith to prevent a greater harm. In such cases, the act is not treated as an offence.
• The law clearly states that if a person acts knowing that harm may occur, but does so honestly and only to avoid a bigger danger to life or property, then such an act can be legally justified.
• Whether the protection of this section applies depends on the facts of each case, especially whether the harm avoided was serious and immediate enough to justify taking such a risk.
• For example, if a person destroys property during a fire to stop it from spreading and to save lives or other property, the law may excuse such an act, provided it was done in good faith and out of necessity.
• Thus, this provision shows that the law recognizes that in certain urgent situations, preventing a greater harm becomes more important than strictly following the law, which is the basic idea behind the Doctrine of Necessity.

Limitations of the Doctrine of Necessity

• The Doctrine of Necessity is mainly used to prevent failure of justice, but it does not mean that authorities can freely act with bias in every situation. Its use is limited and carefully controlled.
• One important exception is when no other competent authority is available to decide a matter. In such cases, even a biased adjudicator may be allowed to decide, because leaving the issue unresolved would be worse.
• Another situation arises when, without a particular decision-maker, the required quorum cannot be formed. Here, the participation of that person becomes necessary to ensure that the decision-making body can function.
• The doctrine may also apply when it is not possible to create or appoint another competent tribunal or authority, making it unavoidable for the existing authority to proceed with the case.
• At the same time, overuse of this doctrine can be problematic. If applied in every case, it may unfairly benefit the defaulting party, while completely ignoring it could result in no decision at all, thereby denying justice to both sides.
• Therefore, before applying the doctrine, it is important to carefully examine whether its use is truly necessary, so that decision-making remains fair and justified.
• The doctrine also allows individuals to challenge administrative actions in courts, but such actions are not considered invalid unless there is clear evidence that bias has actually influenced the decision.

Judicial Approach towards the Doctrine of Necessity

• Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court applied the doctrine where no alternative authority was available. Even though there was a chance of bias, the decision was not set aside due to necessity. This case showed a liberal use of the doctrine in administrative matters.
• Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (1996): The court held that the doctrine should be used only in cases of absolute necessity. If bias is possible, the concerned person should step aside if alternatives exist. This case refined the concept into the Doctrine of Absolute Necessity.