Doctrine Of Necessity Analysis

The principle on which the doctrine of necessity is based has its origin in the writings of Henry de Bracton, who is a medieval jurist. Doctrine of necessity is contrary to the concept of Nemo in propria causa judex, which means that any person should not become the judge in a conflict of interest scenario. Nemo in propria causa judex is also known as rule against bias and is the minimum necessity of the natural justice required to be followed by decision making authorities who must act impartially and fairly without bias and prejudice. The rule of Nemo in propria causa judex is based on the concept of ensuring public confidence in the administrative decision making process. In the judicial and quasi judicial context, this concept is backed

The logic of the doctrine of necessity is that, if there is a choice between allowing a person with bias to make a decision or to stifle the decision making process as a whole, one must choose the former. Because, without the application of doctrine of necessity in such cases, the overall decision making process is stifled and progress is obstructed.

However, in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.K. Ratna the court held that if there is no compulsion for decision making on account of statutory requirement, one must not apply the doctrine of necessity. Nevertheless, when the appropriate circumstances exist, the doctrine of necessity comes into play as an exemption to the rule against bias.

In the context of the topic under consideration, “Doctrine of necessity in light of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana” research questions include: What are the various aspected pertaining to the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana? What is the logic for having the Doctrine of necessity? How did the various courts interpret this doctrine over the

Govt. of Tamil Nadu the SC made the following observations in the context of doctrine of necessity: When a designated authority is constituted by a statute to take administrative or quasi judicial decisions, if a person is disqualified to be part of the decision making owing to bias, it is valid for law to make an exception in certain cases for that person to take a decision despite he being disqualified owing to bias. Otherwise, no decision can be taken on the outstanding issues and public interest may suffer. However, in case of no statutory rule and a committee being constituted under an administrative order, this is not valid. In such cases, the SC observed that the concerned person who is disqualified owing to bias must declare his conflict of interest or bias and opt himself out from the decision