The doctrine of necessity is considered an exception to the rule of bias under the rule of natural justice. It allows the authorities to do two things, that is, to do certain things that absolutely must be done at a certain time, and actions that do not fall within the scope of the law in a normal situation. If there is no definitive authority to decide a question, then doctrine is used in such a situation. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the doctrine of necessity cannot occasionally be invoked for small matters, as it could lead to the absence of the rule of law. If the choice is given as to whether a biased person should act in a case and whether the case itself should be closed, then in such a situation, the first party is preferred to the second party, although this may be affected by the bias of that particular person or authority, however, the decision of that biased authority is binding, to reach a conclusion on an issue in question. There are several cases where the doctrine of necessity has been rejected for failure to comply with necessary principles, one of which is Institute of Chartered Accountancy v. L.K. Ratna, where the court has held that the doctrine of necessity cannot be applied because the legal constraint of the principles of necessity is lacking and disqualifies biased judgment. In situations where there is a choice to proceed with biased judgment or to cancel the action altogether, the choice is always in favor of the former. In such situations, the rule abandons prejudice before necessity.

If a law empowers an authority to act in a certain way, it is its sole responsibility to make a decision on it, and it will be the only authority that can act accordingly, not any other authority that offers no way out. Bias is not disqualified if there is no competent authority to act. With the defence of necessity, there will always be a prima facie violation of the law. In this case, an American ship named “William Brown” with 65 passengers and 17 crew members hit an iceberg and quickly sank. As a result, the rowboat was thrown into the stormy sea. To prevent the boat from sinking, crew members threw some passengers overboard. Later, when a case was pending against one of the crew members, the court ruled that such situations of necessity could be considered a defence to the charge of criminal murder. However, the court noted that those who are sacrificed must be selected fairly based on the group of people present. If the doctrine of necessity can be invoked in any situation, it is possible that it benefits the defaulting party, but at the same time, if the doctrine is not fully accepted, it would nullify the decision that will not bring justice to either party. In order to promote decision-making, it is important to critically analyze the situation and decide whether or not the doctrine of necessity can be affirmed. The doctrine of necessity provides for the possibility of challenging administrative acts in court.

However, the term “bias” should be used in its proper way. If bias resulting from given concepts means the complete absence of prejudice in the judge`s mind, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no one ever will. Consequently, an administrative measure would be declared invalid only if the concepts given are likely to influence the judge`s mind. The doctrine of necessity acts as an exception to “Nemo judex in causa sua,” where an authority is disqualified on the basis of a biased decision. When invoked, the doctrine of necessity serves as a defence in violation of the law that renders the decision valid and not biased. It can only be invoked in certain circumstances, if the doctrine does not enter into full force, it would lead to a complete elimination of the problem, which would cause greater damage. At the same time, this doctrine cannot be applied in all situations, it has been specified by the Supreme Court to apply this doctrine only in cases of absolute necessity, i.e. when no other solution to the problem can be found or when legal provisions oblige the authority.

Therefore, the doctrine of necessity has been changed to the doctrine of absolute necessity. The doctrine of necessity was replaced by the doctrine of absolute necessity in Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, where it was held that this doctrine should be used only in cases of absolute necessity. Private necessity arises from self-interest rather than from a community as a whole. It takes place when the defendant wishes to protect his own interests. It does not serve as an absolute defense, unlike the case of public necessity. Private necessity can be explained by the following example. If the defendant entered his neighbour`s property without his consent in order to prevent the fire from spreading to his own property. The principle applicable to private necessity is “necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private”, which means: “Necessity gives rise to a privilege based on a private right”. This maxim makes it clear that private defence is more of a privilege enjoyed by many people. The first private defence case was Vincent v.

Lake Erie Transp. The doctrine of necessity is a term used to describe a principle of constitutional law under which a state may act lawfully in an emergency situation or an urgent circumstance considered illegal in other circumstances. This principle is used to justify the violation of rights by the state in extreme situations, which is not a situation created by its own actions. Necessity is supposed to be a defense for violations of the law, but it should be violated to prevent more serious harm. The principle is based on writings written by Henry de Bracton in the Middle Ages, and various other legal authorities have helped justify and develop the principle in modern times. This principle is based primarily on Bracton maxim: “What is not otherwise lawful will necessarily be made lawful.” In a 1985 decision, the Chief Justice of Grenada invoked the doctrine of necessity to confirm the legal existence of a court which was subsequently convicted of the murder of individuals who had staged a coup against former leader Maurice Bishop. The court was created after the overthrow of the country`s constitution under an unconstitutional “people`s law” that was later reinstated. The defendants argued that the court before which they were tried had no legal existence under the restored constitution and that they would therefore be deprived of their constitutional right to a trial before a “court established by law”. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the lower court had “arisen in an unconstitutional manner,” but that “the doctrine of necessity justified its actions.” [6] On this basis, murder trials are permitted. This article was written by R Sai Gayatri, who follows BA. LLB from the Post-Doctoral Faculty of Law, Osmania University. This article deals with the doctrine of necessity, its definition, history, exceptions, position in Indian criminal law and legal approach.

The doctrine of necessity is an exception to the principle of “Nemo judex in causa sua”. According to this principle, an authority can be disqualified on the grounds of bias. When the doctrine of necessity is affirmed, it serves as a defense, even if the law is violated, making the decision impartial and valid. However, that doctrine may be relied on only in certain situations where, if not invoked, it would lead to the complete closure of the case and thus cause more serious damage. Moreover, the said doctrine cannot be applied in all cases, that is: the Honourable Supreme Court has stated that the said doctrine can only be invoked in cases of absolute necessity. The conclusion that can be reached is that necessity takes into account the morality of circumstantial evidence and protects someone from circumstantial offense. The need to be a defense other than a new one is also an evolving concept that can be seen through the Vincent case and also through Rv. The case of Dudley and Stephen, who clarified some key points about this. How it evolves will depend on how the judiciary interprets it in future cases. There is no doubt that it has attracted critical criticism and that it also makes sense, as was the case in R v. Dudley and Stephens, where it was said that not all necessities can be a reason for necessity, otherwise there will be complete chaos and nothing else, this conclusion of the judge seems very true.

In case of prevention of a harmful situation, a person has two options, which lead to harm in both directions. In such a situation, a person is forced to commit an act that would otherwise be considered a criminal offence in order to avoid or prevent more serious harm. Simply put, the individual must choose between two evils, and he must rightly choose the least evil option, so that the doctrine of necessity can apply.