Jus necessitates: Definition and Meaning

The Latin phrase "jus necessitates" refers to a person's right to do what is necessary without being deterred by the prospect of legal repercussions. Also known as doctrine of necessity, legal theory known as the concept of necessity permits breaking the law when it is necessary or an emergency. The guiding principle acknowledges that, in some cases, the rigid application of the law may do more harm than the actual breaking of the law. This maxim is discussed upon in Section 81 of IPC.

This is so that the rules can be altered when something is truly important.

What is Jus necessitates?

The Latin phrase Jus Necessitates is directly translated to ‘right needs’, which acknowledges the fact righteousness sometimes stands above the rule of law. This idea derives from the maxims necessitas vincit legume necessity and necessitas non habet, which say that necessity knows no law and violation of law might be excused by necessity, respectively.

Illustrations of Jus necessitates

In Right of Private Defence section 96−106, it is stated that an individual can kill another if he/she is posed to be under threat of life or property. He/she is not subject of a criminal activity when acted under self−defence.

Important Case Laws

Gopal Naidu vs. Emperor (1923)

In this case police officers disarmed an inebriated man who had a handgun in his hand and placed him under arrest for the crime of public annoyance. Despite the fact that the crime of public annoyance was not punishable by law without a warrant, it was decided that they might use this argument to argue that their actions were justified. The Madras High Court ruled that they could use this section's reasoning in this instance. In addition, the protected person or thing could be the accused person or thing, or it could be someone else's.

Federation of Pakistan vs. Tamizuddin Khan (1955)

In this case The Governor−General Ghulam Mohammad's extra−constitutional exercise of emergency powers was given legal approval by Pakistan's Chief Justice, Muhammad Munir. Additionally, the Chief Justice of Pakistan at the time used the aforementioned Henry de Bracton maxim, putting into practise the idea of necessity. This case opened the door for other Commonwealth nations to apply for Jus Necessitates or the doctrine of necessity. However, in order for this theory to be applied, justice must not only be carried out but also appear to have been carried out, even when prejudice is used. As a result, the nemo judex in causa sua concept is not applicable to the notion of necessity.

United States vs. Holmes (1820)

In this case, after a shipwreck, the accused was a part of a boat's crew. In response to the mate's order, he pushed 16 male passengers overboard out of fear that the boat would capsize. Although the accused was not found guilty of murder, he was found guilty of manslaughter and given a six−month term with hard labour.

Regina vs. Dudley & Stephens (1884)

The defendants in this case were Edwin Stephens and Thomas Dudley. A shipwreck left the defendants and a boy called Richard Parker alone in a boat without food or water. Dudley later suggested to Stephen that one of them should be killed in order to save the other two on the eighteenth day, after the three of them had gone seven days without food and water. They so determined that it would be best to kill Parker in order to rescue themselves. Parker was killed on the twentieth day, and Dudley and Stephens both consumed his flesh for four days.

They were later rescued by a ship, and they were accused of murdering Richard Parker. The Court concluded that even though murder was committed out of an intense need for food, doing so does not excuse killing an innocent person in order to save one's own life. The offenders were then given a death sentence, although it was eventually commuted to six months in prison.

Conclusion

When an infraction is committed under certain conditions and exceptions, the offender is released from criminal responsibility and is not subject to punishment. The aforementioned doctrine, however, can only be used in specific circumstances; otherwise, the matter would be resolved completely, which would be more harmful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further said that the said theory may only be used in cases of absolute need and cannot be used in every circumstance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the jus necessitates in jurisprudence?

Ans: The jus necessitatis theory acknowledges that sometimes breaking the law is necessary to further a greater benefit. According to this theory an offender can be excused upon the need of necessity for some greater good.

Q: What does the IPC Section 81 state?

Ans: Nothing constitutes a crime just by virtue of being carried out in good faith with the objective of preventing or averting further harm to people or property, even if it is done with the knowledge that it may do so.

Q: What does essential of necessity in IPC mean?

Ans: A legal principle known as the doctrine of necessity permits people to take actions that might otherwise be illegal or unethical if doing so will protect the greater good or stop greater damage from happening.

Q: What qualifies as a necessity of defence under IPC?

Ans: When someone commits a crime or a criminal act in the midst of an emergency to avert greater harm, the defence of necessity is invoked, allowing the accused to escape punishment because their actions were justified by their desire to avert a circumstance that would result in greater good.