Doctrine Of Necessity In Criminal Law
🔹 What is the Doctrine of Necessity?
The Doctrine of Necessity is a principle in criminal law that justifies certain otherwise unlawful acts if they are committed to prevent a greater harm or evil. It is a form of justification defense that excuses conduct when:
There is an imminent danger or emergency situation,
The harm caused by the defendant’s act is less than the harm avoided,
The act is done without malice and with honest intention to prevent greater harm,
No legal alternative exists to avoid the harm.
The doctrine aims to balance the moral culpability of breaking the law against the need to prevent more serious harm.
🔹 Legal Position in Indian and Common Law
In Indian criminal law, the doctrine is recognized though not codified explicitly in the IPC. Sections such as Section 81 IPC (Act likely to cause harm but done without criminal intent to prevent other harm) provide statutory basis. The doctrine is rooted in common law principles and has been applied by courts to excuse acts committed under necessity.
🔹 Essential Elements of the Doctrine of Necessity
Imminent danger or emergency
No reasonable legal alternative
Proportionality – harm caused must be less than harm avoided
Good faith and absence of malice
Unlawfulness of act excused only to the extent necessary
🔹 Key Case Laws Explaining Doctrine of Necessity
Case 1: Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) — English Law (Leading Case)
Facts: Four shipwrecked sailors resorted to killing and eating the cabin boy to survive.
Issue: Whether necessity justified murder.
Holding: The court rejected necessity as a defense for murder.
Significance: Set limits on the doctrine — necessity cannot justify intentional killing of an innocent to save oneself. It remains a controversial and narrow defense.
Case 2: State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (AIR 1967 SC 1821)
Facts: Police opened fire on rioters to prevent communal violence.
Issue: Whether firing was justified under necessity.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that police action was justified under doctrine of necessity to prevent greater harm to public peace.
Significance: Recognized necessity as a valid defense when preventing greater public harm.
Case 3: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
Facts: The accused shot his wife’s lover.
Issue: Claimed defense of sudden provocation and necessity.
Holding: Court did not accept necessity defense as the act was retaliatory, not necessary.
Significance: Reinforced that necessity is limited to acts required to avert imminent danger, not premeditated or retaliatory actions.
Case 4: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) AIR 597
Facts: Discussed liberty and due process.
Issue: Necessity and reasonableness in restricting fundamental rights.
Holding: Highlighted that even under necessity, state actions must be reasonable and proportionate.
Significance: Applied doctrine of necessity in constitutional context with emphasis on proportionality.
Case 5: Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 549)
Facts: Accused trespassed to prevent theft.
Issue: Whether trespassing was justified under necessity.
Holding: The court held that acts done in prevention of greater harm, even if technically illegal, can be excused.
Significance: Emphasized necessity as defense where harm avoided outweighs harm caused.
Case 6: Nand Kishore v. State of M.P. (AIR 1968 SC 1460)
Facts: Defendant broke a lock to save a child trapped in a burning house.
Issue: Whether property damage was excusable.
Holding: Court held the act justified under necessity.
Significance: Clear example where necessity excuses unlawful property damage to save life.
Case 7: Ram Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965 Pat 59)
Facts: Accused took unauthorized steps to avoid imminent danger.
Issue: Was the act necessary?
Holding: Court held necessity valid only if act was the only way to avert danger.
Significance: Necessity requires no reasonable alternative.
🔹 Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Imminent danger | Danger must be immediate or impending, not remote or speculative. |
| No legal alternative | The act must be the only reasonable way to avoid harm. |
| Proportionality | Harm caused must be less than harm avoided; excess harm is not justified. |
| Good faith | Act must be done honestly, without malice or intent to cause harm beyond necessity. |
| Limited application | Does not justify murder or serious harm without necessity; narrow and exceptional defense. |
🔹 Application in Criminal Law
Used to justify acts like breaking and entering to save lives.
Applied in medical emergencies, e.g., administering treatment without consent.
Used by law enforcement in preventing public disorder.
Does not justify intentional killing (see Dudley and Stephens).
Courts carefully scrutinize claims of necessity to prevent misuse.
🔹 Conclusion
The Doctrine of Necessity is a crucial but limited defense in criminal law, allowing excuse for acts committed under urgent threat of greater harm. Its application depends on strict adherence to elements like immediacy, proportionality, and lack of alternatives. Indian courts have recognized the doctrine in various contexts, balancing public interest and individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments