Necessity As A Defence In Emergencies
What is the Defence of Necessity?
Necessity is a legal principle allowing a person to commit what would otherwise be a criminal act to prevent a greater harm from occurring.
It is an exception to the general rule of criminal liability, based on the maxim “the lesser evil.”
The defence arises when a person is forced to choose between two evils and chooses the lesser to avoid imminent harm.
It differs from duress, where a person is compelled by threats from another person.
Conditions for the Defence of Necessity
Imminent danger or emergency: The act must be done to prevent a serious and immediate danger.
No legal alternative: There should be no reasonable lawful option available.
Proportionality: The harm caused must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided.
Voluntariness: The act must be voluntary and done in good faith.
No fault of the accused: The situation must not be brought about by the accused’s own fault.
Legal Basis in Indian Law
The defence of necessity is recognized under Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
“Acts likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, to prevent other harm.”
It is often discussed in conjunction with Section 88 IPC (acts not intended to cause death or harm but done with consent for a lawful purpose).
It is a justification defence, not an excuse, meaning the act is considered lawful under the circumstances.
Important Case Laws on Necessity as a Defence
1. Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 (UK Case)
Facts: Shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
Issue: Whether necessity justifies killing another person.
Ruling: Court rejected necessity as a defence for murder.
Significance: Established that necessity does not justify taking an innocent life.
Relevance: Set limits on necessity defence; killing to save oneself is not justified.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (AIR 1967 SC 847)
Facts: Defendant damaged government property to prevent a greater danger.
Issue: Whether necessity can justify destruction of property.
Ruling: Supreme Court held acts done to prevent imminent danger are justified under Section 81 IPC.
Significance: Recognized the defence of necessity for preventing greater harm.
3. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954 SCR 1077)
Facts: Concerned search and seizure under emergency circumstances.
Issue: Applicability of necessity in actions by state officials.
Ruling: Court observed that actions done to protect public interest and avoid greater harm can be justified.
Significance: Necessity defence can be extended to lawful acts done to prevent public danger.
4. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962 AIR SC 605)
Facts: A husband shot his wife’s paramour to save his honor.
Issue: Whether necessity or grave provocation could be a defence for homicide.
Ruling: Court rejected necessity as a defence for murder but considered partial defence of grave provocation.
Significance: Reinforced the limits of necessity defence in cases involving human life.
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts: Preventive detention under emergency.
Issue: Whether necessity can justify deprivation of liberty.
Ruling: Court held necessity must be strictly construed and cannot override fundamental rights arbitrarily.
Significance: Emphasized necessity defence must be balanced against constitutional rights.
6. Queen v. Prahlad Singh (AIR 1960 SC 845)
Facts: Defendant took refuge in house during communal riots.
Issue: Whether his trespass was justified by necessity.
Ruling: Supreme Court held defence of necessity applies if trespass is to save life from imminent danger.
Significance: Applied necessity defence to trespass in emergency situations.
Summary Table: Key Principles and Cases
| Case | Year | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Regina v. Dudley and Stephens | 1884 | Necessity does not justify killing an innocent person |
| State of Rajasthan v. Balchand | 1967 | Destruction of property justified to prevent greater harm under Section 81 IPC |
| M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra | 1954 | Necessity defence extends to acts preventing public danger |
| K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra | 1962 | Necessity not a defence for murder; grave provocation considered |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | Necessity must be balanced with constitutional rights |
| Queen v. Prahlad Singh | 1960 | Necessity can justify trespass to save life from danger |
Conclusion
The defence of necessity is recognized but strictly limited in scope.
It protects individuals who commit acts to prevent a greater and imminent harm, provided no legal alternative exists and proportionality is maintained.
It does not justify murder or serious harm to innocent persons.
Courts carefully weigh the urgency and nature of danger against the wrongful act committed.
The principle is vital in emergencies such as natural disasters, riots, or life-threatening situations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments