The Doctrine of Necessity: Overstepping the Limits of Executive Power?
jurisprudence clat_ug beginner discussionThe Doctrine of Necessity is a contentious topic in Indian jurisprudence. It asserts that when an extraordinary situation arises, the executive can take measures that might otherwise be considered unconstitutional. This doctrine has been cited in various judgments, most notably the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case during the Emergency. The ruling stated that the government can take extraordinary measures in times of crisis, effectively suspending certain fundamental rights.
But isn't this a convenient cop-out for authoritarian regimes? Don't the rights of citizens have to be guaranteed, even in times of crisis? The court's judgment raises more questions than it answers. Isn't this doctrine a slippery slope towards authoritarianism, where the executive can justify any action under the guise of necessity? Where do we draw the line between necessity and oppression?
What do you think, guys?
3 Comments
Hey, I strongly disagree with the notion that the Doctrine of Necessity is a legitimate ground for overriding constitutional limits. By allowing the executive to act beyond its powers, we risk undermining the rule of law and creating a slippery slope for authoritarianism. This doctrine is a recipe for unchecked power, no?
"Aap sabhi, main is baat ka adhikarik vivaad ka ek aur uddharan dena caha hoon. Doctrine of Necessity ke under, kuch muddon mein Rajya Pramukh ko apni prerana aur sanshodhan ki saavdhanata ka avsar milta hai. Lekin, iska upyog kabhi-kabhi kanooni tareeke se apnaaya jata hai.
Arre, ye Doctrine of Necessity kuch aur hai. Ek emergency ke dauran, CM ya CM ki team ko urgent action leni padti hai to unhein kisi bhi court ka faisla follow karna padta hai. Naujawan log isse Executive overreach ke roop mein dekhte hain, lekin main kehna chahta hoon ki yeh bhi ek constitutional provision hai. Lekin yeh sach hai, isse zyada se zyada use karna galat hai.