Necessity of General Defences to an Action related to Torts for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Introduction

• Necessity is a legal principle that permits individuals or entities to break the law or cause harm in specific circumstances when it is deemed necessary to prevent a greater harm or promote a greater good. 

1. Elements of Necessity:

• Imminent and Unavoidable Threat: Necessity typically arises when there is an immediate and unavoidable threat or danger that cannot be averted through legal means. It is not a defense that can be used in situations where there is time for lawful actions or alternatives.
• Proportionality: The harm caused by the necessary action must be proportionate and reasonable compared to the harm being avoided or the benefit achieved. In other words, the harm caused should be less significant than the harm prevented or the good achieved.
• No Reasonable Alternatives: The individual or entity invoking the defense of necessity must demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives available to prevent the harm or achieve the greater good. If lawful alternatives existed but were not pursued, the defense may not apply.

2. Examples of Necessity:

• Medical Necessity: A doctor may administer a life-saving treatment to an unconscious patient without their consent if waiting for consent would result in the patient's death. The harm caused by administering treatment without consent (e.g., a minor invasion of bodily integrity) is outweighed by the greater good of saving a life.
• Emergency Evacuation: During a natural disaster like a flood or wildfire, authorities may forcibly evacuate residents from an area, even if it requires entering private property without consent. This action is deemed necessary to protect lives and prevent a greater disaster.

3. Case Law Illustrating Necessity: State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati (1962)

• Background
  • In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati, the situation revolved around a house fire that posed a significant threat to life and property.
• Legal Issue
  • The primary legal issue in this case was whether the actions of the fire brigade, which forcibly entered Vidhyawati's property to extinguish a fire, could be justified under the defense of Necessity.
• Court's Decision and Reasoning
  • The court, in its judgment, held that the actions of the fire brigade were justified under the defense of Necessity.
  • The reasoning behind this decision was that there was an imminent and unavoidable threat posed by the fire. Delaying action to obtain the owner's consent or to follow standard legal procedures would have resulted in the fire spreading and causing even greater harm.
  • The court emphasized the principle of proportionality, noting that the minor invasion of Vidhyawati's property rights (entering without consent) was outweighed by the greater good of preventing the fire's spread and potential loss of life and property.
  • Therefore, the court ruled that the defense of Necessity applied, and Vidhyawati's conviction for obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties was set aside.
• Significance
  • The State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati case is significant as it reaffirms the principle that Necessity can justify actions that would otherwise be considered unlawful when they are necessary to prevent a greater harm.
  • It underscores the flexibility of the legal system in responding to emergency situations and protecting the greater good, even if it means temporarily infringing upon individual rights or legal procedures.
• Key Takeaways
  • This case illustrates the practical application of the Necessity defense in situations where immediate action is required to prevent harm or protect lives and property.
  • It highlights the importance of weighing the harm caused by necessary actions against the greater harm that would result from inaction.

4 Practical Application:

• Necessity is typically invoked in emergency situations where immediate action is required to avert a catastrophe, protect lives, or prevent substantial harm.
• It serves as a reminder that the law should not be rigid and should allow for flexibility when urgent and dire situations demand it.