The Doctrine of Necessity serves as a notable exception to the established principle of Natural Justice, which generally forbids individuals from adjudicating their own disputes due to the risk of bias. Under typical circumstances, the fundamental tenets of Natural Justice demand impartiality and fairness in decision-making processes.

However, there are instances when the Doctrine of Necessity becomes applicable, specifically in situations where no alternative qualified individual is available to render a judgment. This doctrine recognizes that the absence of a competent decision-maker might necessitate allowing the designated individual, who could have a potential bias, to make the necessary decisions to ensure progress in a given case.

In practice, the Doctrine of Necessity acknowledges that, while the ideal of impartiality should be upheld, there are moments when practical considerations override this principle. When urgent decisions must be made and other options are unavailable, it may be unavoidable for the designated person-despite any potential biases-to step in and render a decision.

The logic behind this allowance is rooted in the need to facilitate the continuation of legal proceedings and ensure that justice is not delayed indefinitely. Therefore, while recognizing the potential for partiality, the Doctrine of Necessity plays a crucial role in maintaining the functionality of judicial systems in circumstances where inaction might lead to greater injustices.

The doctrine of necessity authorizes exceptional measures during emergencies or other critical situations. It provides the option to suspend or modify laws when following them rigidly could harm the public interest. This principle is rooted in the belief that laws exist to benefit society as a whole. The notion of necessity as a 'General Exception' (Sections 14-44, Chapter-III) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) implies that it is fair and reasonable for an individual facing an imminent threat to take actions to avoid that danger, even if it involves the risk of causing some other harm. In 2023, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) applied the "doctrine of necessity" to approve six transactions related to mergers and acquisitions (M&A) as well as investment proposals.

Historical Origin:
The roots of the Doctrine of Necessity can be found in the principles of Roman law, which asserted that necessity transcends legal constraints, encapsulated in the phrase "necessitas legem non habet." As time progressed, this fundamental concept underwent significant evolution, gradually integrating itself into the fabric of common law systems. Its relevance became particularly pronounced in the realm of constitutional law, as courts encountered complex dilemmas where unwavering compliance with the law threatened to result in more severe consequences than the law's breach itself.

Key Principles:
The doctrine is underpinned by three main principles:

• Necessity Over Legality: In certain situations, actions that are ordinarily regarded as illegal may be warranted if they are crucial to prevent considerable harm. This principle acknowledges that strict adherence to legal norms may not always be appropriate or effective in crisis scenarios. For instance, in emergency situations where lives are at stake, individuals or authorities might find themselves compelled to take measures that, under normal circumstances, would be deemed unlawful. The overarching goal here is to prioritize the well-being and safety of individuals and communities, recognizing that the motive behind such actions is not to flout the law but to protect against immediate and serious threats. This underscores a moral framework where the imperative to save lives or prevent disaster can outweigh rigid legal constraints.
   
• Proportionality: The principle of proportionality stresses that any action taken in response to a threat must correspond appropriately to the level of danger being faced. Essentially, this means that the response should not be excessive or too drastic in relation to the threat at hand. For example, if a minor disturbance threatens to escalate but can be controlled with minimal force, using overwhelming force would be unjustifiable. This principle serves as a critical guideline to ensure that responses remain measured, balanced, and do not violate fundamental rights unnecessarily. It reflects a commitment to maintaining a just society where actions are taken with careful consideration, ensuring that the means of addressing a threat do not inadvertently cause greater harm.
   
• Temporary Nature: The doctrine associated with necessity and proportionality is intended to be a temporary measure, activated solely for the duration of exceptional circumstances until normal conditions are restored. This emphasizes that such actions should not lead to a permanent state of affairs or a permanent shift in legal standards. It is important to reinstate regular legal processes and protections once the crisis has abated to avoid the erosion of civil liberties and the normalization of extraordinary measures. This concept reinforces the understanding that while emergencies may require urgent responses, those responses must be closely monitored and should revert back to established legal norms as soon as the situation allows. This ensures a balance between effective crisis management and the maintenance of a lawful and just society.

Application in Constitutional Law:
The doctrine is mainly employed in situations of constitutional crises, especially when courts are asked to validate actions such as coups, emergency decrees, or other unusual governmental measures. This approach is intended to maintain a semblance of legal continuity during turbulent times. However, critics caution that, in practice, it can pose significant risks to democratic principles. The endorsement of such extraordinary actions by judicial bodies may inadvertently legitimize authoritarian practices, weakening the foundational tenets of democracy. As a result, while the doctrine aims to provide stability during crises, it also raises profound concerns about the potential erosion of civil liberties and democratic governance.

International Perspectives:
The Doctrine of Necessity has significant implications within the realm of international law, particularly concerning state accountability in various disputes. This legal principle allows states to justify actions that may otherwise breach international obligations under certain urgent conditions. A noteworthy example can be found in Article 25 of the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility, which explicitly acknowledges necessity as a legitimate defense for states when they face extraordinary situations. These circumstances, which may pose a threat to essential interests, enable states to take necessary measures, despite potential violations of international law, while maintaining the integrity of legal frameworks governing state conduct.

Criticism:
Critics contend that the Doctrine of Necessity functions as a double-edged sword. While it is intended to serve the greater good and ensure stability during times of crisis, there is a significant risk of it being exploited to legitimize undemocratic measures. This includes actions such as military coups or the curtailment of constitutional rights, which can undermine democratic principles. Additionally, the absence of clear and precise guidelines regarding its application can result in judicial overreach. This lack of clarity not only threatens the integrity of the legal system but also jeopardizes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law, leading to potential abuses of power.

Support and Justifications:
On the other hand, proponents of the doctrine contend that it serves as a crucial tool during periods of crisis. By placing the emphasis on safeguarding the integrity of the state or its legal framework instead of adhering rigidly to strict legal interpretations, this approach promotes a sense of stability and continuity that is essential in tumultuous times. This practical viewpoint not only helps to prevent disorder and confusion but also allows institutions to operate effectively and maintain their essential functions, thereby promoting resilience and adaptability in the face of extraordinary circumstances that could otherwise disrupt societal order.

Modern Relevance:
In the current framework of governance, the Doctrine of Necessity remains highly relevant, especially in situations involving public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, or in the face of national security challenges. During these critical times, governments have invoked this doctrine as a legal foundation for implementing emergency powers. Such powers may encompass measures like enforcing lockdowns to curb the spread of disease, temporarily suspending certain rights to protect public safety, or bypassing ordinary legislative processes to expedite decision-making.

The rationale behind these actions is rooted in the belief that extraordinary circumstances demand equally extraordinary responses. This approach often raises complex ethical and legal questions, as the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding individual freedoms becomes a central issue. As societies navigate these unprecedented challenges, the implications of the Doctrine of Necessity continue to provoke significant debate among policymakers, legal experts, and citizens alike.

Seminal Cases:

• The State v. Dosso (1958), Pakistan: This case represents the official articulation of the Doctrine of Necessity in the realm of constitutional law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir, endorsed the military coup orchestrated by General Ayub Khan. The court determined that the coup was essential for maintaining stability and order in the nation, despite its suspension of the Constitution. This ruling established a precedent that shaped subsequent military interventions in Pakistan, frequently defended under the same doctrine.
   
• Ex Parte Matovu (1966), Uganda: In Uganda, the Doctrine of Necessity was invoked after Prime Minister Milton Obote removed the President from power. The court supported the suspension of the Constitution and sanctioned the actions of the new government, arguing that such steps were vital for ensuring the state's continued operation. This case is often referenced as an instance where the doctrine was employed to legitimize unconstitutional changes in government.
   
• Grenada Coup and U.S. Intervention (1983): After the assassination of Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, military intervention by the U.S. and other Caribbean nations occurred, justified by the need to restore order and avert chaos. While this intervention sparked controversy, it was subsequently defended under the Doctrine of Necessity, claiming it was essential for the protection of Grenadian citizens and regional stability.
   
• A pivotal case in Indian legal history where the Doctrine of Necessity was referenced in principle is Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967). In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court determined that Parliament lacked the authority to amend fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Constitution. While the court did not explicitly invoke the Doctrine of Necessity, the judgment acknowledged the need to balance the Constitution's rigidity with society's evolving requirements.

This recognition set the stage for future cases where extraordinary amendments were justified to address pressing national concerns. The decision was later revisited in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, allowing amendments under certain necessary conditions without altering the Constitution's fundamental framework.

These instances underscore the doctrine's role in legitimizing exceptional actions during times of crisis, although they continue to provoke considerable debate regarding their validity and ramifications.

Conclusion:
The Doctrine of Necessity occupies a significant and contentious position within the realms of legal and constitutional debate. While the risks associated with its potential misuse pose a significant threat to the integrity of democratic principles, its judicious and measured implementation can serve as a vital mechanism for ensuring legal continuity in times of extraordinary circumstances. This doctrine, which allows for actions that may otherwise be deemed unlawful in order to achieve a greater good, necessitates a delicate equilibrium between the imperatives of necessity and the tenets of legality.

If this balance is not carefully managed, there is a danger that the Doctrine of Necessity might be manipulated or appropriated as a tool for unlawful actions, subverting the very democratic processes it seeks to protect. Thus, it is imperative for legal authorities and organizations to navigate this doctrine with caution, ensuring that it is used responsibly and in alignment with fundamental legal principles, thereby safeguarding the democratic framework.

Reference:

• Vahanvaty, I. (2024). The life and times of Justice A. M. Ahmadi: The fearless judge. Juggernaut Books.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565