Legal Explainer: The Doctrine of Necessity in Constitutional Law

 Legal Explainer: The Doctrine of Necessity in Constitutional Law

The Doctrine of Necessity is a legal principle that allows otherwise unlawful actions to be justified if they are taken to prevent greater harm to the public or maintain state stability. It is often invoked in constitutional crises, judicial decisions, and governance matters.

Key Features of the Doctrine:

1. Exception to Legal Rules:
   • Actions that would normally be unconstitutional or illegal may be validated under extreme circumstances.
2. Used in Constitutional and Administrative Law:
   • Often applied when governance is at risk, such as judicial appointments, emergencies, or political crises.
3. Must Be in Public Interest:
   • The doctrine cannot be misused for arbitrary power—it applies only in situations where inaction would cause greater harm.

Application in Indian Law:

• Used in situations where strict constitutional adherence is impossible due to practical constraints.
• Helps ensure government continuity and judicial functioning during crises.

Landmark Judgments:

• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991): Allowed judges to be tried for corruption despite constitutional restrictions, citing necessity.
• Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy (1996): Validated election-related decisions taken in the absence of specific legal provisions.

Significance:

• Ensures governance stability during crises.
• Prevents legal vacuums in emergency situations.
• Balances legal rigidity with practical necessity to protect public interest.

The Doctrine of Necessity serves as a safeguard in extraordinary circumstances, ensuring that justice and governance prevail even when legal procedures are insufficient.