14 July, 2020

Blog

Doctrine Of Necessity: Lessons For Sri Lanka From Pakistan

By Jayampathy Wickramaratne

Jayampathy Wickramaratne PC

The doctrine of necessity was first expounded in the 13th century by English jurist Bracton, who stated ‘that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity’. Glanville Williams described the defence of necessity as involving ‘a choice of the lesser evil.

The doctrine is recognized in criminal law. For example, section 74 of our Penal Code gives the following illustration: ‘A in a great fire pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention, in good faith, of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act, A is not guilty of an offence.’

Because of its express recognition, with such illustrations, chances of the doctrine being abused in matters of criminal law are less, also because there is at least one appeal available to a higher court. The danger is with its application in constitutional law when a matter is decided almost always in the highest court of a land, as happened in Pakistan.

In Re the Reference by the Governor General (PLD 1955 FC 435), the Pakistani Federal Court quoted Cromwell as saying ‘[i]f nothing should be done but what is according to law, the throat of the nation might be cut while we send for someone to make the law.’ But Cromwell was aware of the danger of abuse of the doctrine. He stated in Parliament on 12 September 1654: “Necessity hath no law. Feigned necessities, imaginary necessities…are the greatest cozenage men can put upon the providence of God . . ..” 

S. A. De Smith, having seen the doctrine being prostituted in Pakistan, stated in his Constitutional and Administrative Law (3d ed. 1977, p. 502) that the necessity must be proportionate to the evil that is to be averted and acceptance of the principle does not normally imply total abdication from judicial review or acquiescence in the supersession of the legal order.

This paper is about how the doctrine paved the way for the destruction of democracy in Pakistan, from whose experience Sri Lanka has much to learn. The immediate reason for writing this is the call from pro-government lawyers to emulate what happened in Pakistan. What is worse is the attempt at eulogizing Chief Justice Munir who introduced the doctrine to Pakistan and who has rightly been labelled ‘the destroyer of democracy in Pakistan’. 

Dissolution of Constituent Assembly

At independence, the Government of India Act, 1935 was the basic law of both India and Pakistan. Their respective Constitutional Assemblies (CA) were also the legislatures. While the Indian CA produced a constitution by November 1949, things dragged on in Pakistan. The untimely death of Jinnah and the assassination of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan also contributed to the slow pace.   On 21 September 1954, the revised report of the Basic Principles Committee was approved by the CA and the draft of the constitution was ready to be announced on December 25, 1954, Ali Jinnah’s birthday. But Governor General Ghulam Muhammad dismissed the CA on 24 October 1954 claiming that the CA had lost the confidence of the people and that the constitutional machinery had broken down. The real reason, though, was that the draft proposed the curtailment of the Governor-General’s powers, including, importantly, the power of dismissing the Government of the elected Prime Minister.

The dissolution was successfully challenged in the Sindh High Court. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court had been granted by section 223-A introduced to the Government of India Act by the CA in July 1954. This was one of the forty-six pieces of legislation passed by the CA since independence. The laws were not assented to by the Governor General but were signed into law by the President of the Assembly as provided by the CA Rules. The Government claimed that section 233-A was invalid as it had not received the Governor-General’s assent. The High Court rejected this argument, stating the provisions of Independence Act left no room for any manner of doubt that the CA was a sovereign body and not subject to any checks and balances, restraints and restrictions. 

The Government appealed to the Federal Court headed by Munir CJ. The Federal Court, in Federation of Pakistan v Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan, allowed the appeal, with Cornelius J dissenting. Munir CJ did not consider the issue of the legality of the dissolution but decided that it was imperative that a law enacted by the CA should be assented to by the Governor-General. Thus, section 223-A was null and void and the Sindh High Court had no writ jurisdiction. 

Necessity invoked

The judgement also meant that not only section 233-A but also the other forty-five laws enacted by the CA were void. The Governor-General then sought to validate the Acts, except section 233-A, by indicating his assent with retrospective operation, but the Federal Court in Usif Patel v The Crown, declared that this could not be done. 

The Governor-General then made a Reference to the Federal Court seeking its opinion on the matter (Re the Reference by the Governor General, PLD 1955 FC 435).  The Federal Court, divided three-two, held that the Governor-General has during the interim period the power under the common law of civil or state necessity of retrospectively validating the laws concerned until the question of their validation is decided upon by a new Constituent Assembly. 

Munir CJ invoked the doctrine of necessity in support of the decision of the majority. He relied on passages in an address to the jury (thus, in a criminal case) by Lord Mansfield that subject to the condition of absoluteness, extremeness and imminence, an act which would otherwise be illegal becomes legal if it is done bona fide under the stress of necessity, the necessity being referable to an intention to preserve the constitution, the State or the society and to prevent it from dissolution. Chitty’s statement that necessity knows no law and the maxim cited by Bracton that necessity makes lawful which otherwise is not lawful were also cited. Since Lord Mansfield’s address expressly refers to the right of a private person to act in necessity, in the case of Head of the State justification to act must a fortiori be clearer and more imperative, Munir CJ stated.

In the result, what Chief Justice Munir did was to effectively validate the dissolution of the CA and let all the other laws enacted by the CA to continue. But this was to be just the beginning of Munir’s contribution to the destruction of Pakistani democracy. 

In 1955 itself, Ghulam Muhammad was deposed by Major General Isakander Mirza with the support of members of the new CA.

Legitimising military rule

State v. Dosso (PLD 1958 SC 533) concerned four appeals from the High Court of West Pakistan. They were listed for argument before the Supreme Court on 13 and 14 October 1958. The main issue before the Court was the legality of the Councils of Elders in the tribal areas of the North Western Frontier Province which were given criminal jurisdiction under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. The respondents had succeeded in the High Court which held that the relevant Regulation offended fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 5 of the new Constitution of 1956. 

Six days before the hearing, on 07 October 1958, President Mirza annulled the Constitution by Proclamation, dismissed the Central Cabinet and Provincial Cabinets and dissolved the National Assembly and both Provincial Assemblies. Martial Law was declared and General Muhammad Ayub Khan, CommanderinChief of the Pakistan Army, was appointed Chief Martial Law Administrator. Three days later, the President promulgated the Laws Continuance in Force Order, the general effect of which was the validation of laws, other than the 1956 Constitution, that were in force before the Proclamation. The Order contained the further direction that the country shall be governed ‘as nearly as may be’ in accordance with the 1956 Constitution. 

The main issue now before the Supreme Court was the legal validity of the new regime. Would Article 5 of the 1956 Constitution still apply? In other words, was the abrogation of the Constitution valid? On the day the judgment in Dosso was due, in the early hours of 27 October, Ayub Khan struck, forcing Mirza out and later packing him off to London. Munir CJ placed the stamp of legality on the military regime, as he did for Ghulam Muhammad’s dismissal of the CA. He relied on Kelsen’s theory of revolutionary legality. In Kelsen’s view, since the principle of legitimacy is grounded in the grundnorm (the basic norm), a revolution or coup, which sets aside the basic norm, denudes the entire legal order of its validity. A successful, or efficacious, revolution thus puts in place a new grundnorm from which the entire legal order must derive its legitimacy.

Munir CJ held that the revolution having been successful, it satisfies the test of efficacy and becomes a basic lawcreating fact. On that assumption, the Laws Continuance in Force Order, however transitory or imperfect it may be, is a new legal order and it is in accordance with that Order that the validity of the laws and the correctness of judicial decisions has to be determined. 

It is hard to see how, in a case that was heard within six days of the promulgation of Martial Law and within three days of the promulgation of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, Munir could hold that the new regime satisfied the test of efficacy. Indeed, as counsel in the 1972 Asma Jilani case would point out: ‘It was too early yet to hazard even a guess as to its efficacy. Indeed, had the learned Chief Justice waited a few more days he would have seen that the efficacy was nonexistent. This was more than amply demonstrated by the removal of the socalled successful lawcreator himself the very next day after the publication of the judgment of the Court. Where then, it is said, was “the essential condition” for the recognition of the change?’

Asma JIlani, SC rejects ‘necessity’

Ayub Khan promulgated a new Constitution on 01 March 1962 which came into effect on 08 June 1962. Unable to deal with the growing unrest in East Pakistan, Ayub handed over power to the Army’s Commander-in-Chief, General Yahya Khan on 24 March 1969. Yahya Khan imposed martial law two days later and abrogated the 1962 Constitution. He appointed himself President and Chief Martial Law Administrator. On 04 April 1969, a Provisional Constitution Order was enacted whereby the Constitution of 1962 was by and large restored, and it was provided that the country was to be governed as nearly as may be in accordance with its terms but subject to the Proclamation of Martial Law and to any Regulation or Order that may be made from time to time by the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

After the defeat of Pakistan in the Bangladeshi war Yahya Khan resigned on 20 December 1971 and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistani People’s Party, took over both positions.

The validity of the Yahya Khan regime came up for decision in Asma JIlani v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1972 SC 139). The High Court, relying on State v Dosso, held that the Order of 1969 was a valid and binding law and that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. 

The Supreme Court declined to follow Dosso. Hamoodur Rahman CJ stated that ‘Kelsen’s theory was, by no means, a universally accepted theory nor was it a theory which could claim to have become a basic doctrine of the science of modern jurisprudence, nor did Kelsen ever attempt to formulate any theory which “favours totalitarianism”.’ Kelsen’s theory is a descriptive theory of law and not a normative principle of adjudication. 

The Chief Justice agreed with the criticism that Munir CJ not only misapplied Kelsen’s doctrine but also fell into error in thinking that it was a generally accepted doctrine of modern jurisprudence. ‘Even the disciples of Kelsen have hesitated to go as far as Kelsen had gone.’ Dosso’s case does not lay down good law, and must be overruled. The military rule sought to be imposed upon country Yahya Khan was declared not only invalid and illegitimate but also incapable of being sustained even on ground of necessity.  

The Asma JIlani judgement was followed by the removal of Martial Law, the interim Constitution of 1972 and then by the new Constitution of 1973 under which Pakistan reverted back to a Parliamentary form of government. Bhutto became Prime Minister. In July 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Bhutto, imposed Martial Law and abrogated the 1973 Constitution.

SC rules military take-over ‘necessary’

The legality of Zia’s regime came up for decision in Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff (PLD 1877 SC 657). The Court held that Kelsen’s theory was not applicable. One would have expected the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of the change. Instead, the Court went to hold, relying on the doctrine of necessity, that the military overthrow itself was necessary! 

Zia, like the dictators before him, ruled with an iron fist until August 1988, when he died in a plane crash. His death paved the way for the restoration of democracy and elections in December that year. There was relative peace for about a decade until the Army struck again in October 1999, this time under the leadership of Musharraf, who ruled until August 2008 when he was forced to resign. At the Parliamentary elections held in February 2008, his party was badly defeated.

‘Necessity’ buried

In Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, Prime Minister’s case (19 June 2019), the Supreme Court refused to resurrect ‘the malignant doctrine of necessity which has already been buried, because of the valiant struggle of the people of Pakistan.’ When Musharraf was tried for high treason (Federation of Pakistan v. General (R) Pervez Musharraf, 17 December 2019), the issue of the legality of his actions came up before the Special High Court which refused to invoke the doctrine of necessity to validate his actions. Referring to Munir CJ’s original invocation of the doctrine, the Special High Court stated: ‘Had the hon’ble Superior Judiciary, at that time, not invoked the Doctrine of Necessity, and had proceeded against usurpers, abrogaters, subvertors, the Nation would not have seen this day at-least, where an office in uniform repeats this offence’.

Addressing a judge’s conference on 02 February 2019, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mian Saqib Nisar said that the infamous doctrine of necessity that had given the judicial nod to successive martial laws in the country now lay buried. (Dawn, 04 February 2019).

Mark M. Stavsky in his paper on ‘The Doctrine of State Necessity in Pakistan’ warned against the dangers of the doctrine’s application in constitutional law: ‘Doctrinally, courts should be reluctant to permit deviations from constitutional norms. Approval must be reluctant because courts, in reviewing a state necessity claim, must consider the legitimacy of readjusting fundamental political, social, and legal values. This consideration must be made in cases where the challenged state action affects individual rights as well as in cases involving changes in the governmental structure.’ (Cornell International Law Journal, Summer 1983, 341 at p. 344).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3
    7

    Interesting collection of cases.
    /
    Basically…
    /
    There should be an actual and specific threat that required immediate action. Then the concerned party must have no realistic alternative to completing the said act.
    The harm caused by the said act must not be greater than the harm avoided.
    /
    Best example… war with LTTE.

    • 5
      1

      It is so stupid to compare it with that of a war, but stupid people of your nature would repeatedly do so.
      :
      Dr Jayampathi Wickramaratne is a constitutional expert so as that Prof. Jayawickrama from Hongkong.
      :
      These genetlemen without being biased, just heart out the situation so that the people be informed.
      :
      Also at the time, BUNCH OF THUGS/ proved crooks raped the former President SIRISENA two years ago – they were in the same opinion – that constitutional paragraphs would not say anything – in the end, all these men – today sitting in the PM seat made every effort to hide their tails behind the legs… remember ? We are not reborn.
      :
      Mahinda Rajapakshe is a shameless person – no comparable to anyone in srilanken politics today.
      :
      People that support to him are also no different – so, there is a saying – they build the palace going by the nature of devilsඔවුන් මාළිගාව ගොඩනඟන්නේ යක්ෂයන්ගේ ස්වභාවය අනුව ය – මෙතරම් කාලයක් මිනිසුන් ඇස් පුළුල් නොකර, එය ග්‍රහණය නොකරනු ඇත.

      Knowing the ground reality of srilanka, people have to change their MIND SET – if not today when ?

      • 0
        6

        Mr. leela ge …..
        /
        For your understanding (You idiots seems to suffer from lack of common sense) I will put my answer point-wise.
        \
        # Of course we thought/think that a war (threat to sovereignty of the country) is an actual and specific threat that required immediate action.
        # Your expert couldn’t even complete first draft of his well-advertised constitution for 5 long years.
        # Of course this article itself is biased. Simply because by comparing to Pakistan he wants to cast doubt on a democratically elected president.
        # Sirisena is your clown. Not ours. By tackling him in SLPP have effectively neutralize SLFP.
        # Mahinda Rajapakshe is a talented politician – of course you cant compare him to anyone in Sri Lankan politics today.

        • 2
          0

          Mrs Pasqual,
          .
          NPOWasting my time for your stupid repeats – for all above but
          .
          QUOTE
          # Sirisena is your clown. Not ours. By tackling him in SLPP have effectively neutralize SLFP.
          # Mahinda Rajapakshe is a talented politician – of course you cant compare him to anyone in Sri Lankan politics today.
          UNQUOTE

          Sirisena proved to be his lap dog or his stupidity. Birds of a feather flock together – both Sira and Mara are not good leaders.
          :
          My foot, MR is talented ? Only for PUNNAKU drinkers.
          :
          Recalling how MAFIA BOSS responded to a press briefig shortly before the current govt came in to being – ” Give us the govt, we will show how we bring funds”:
          :
          Today the very same man is speechless – and his brother SHOULD use a pacifier/sooner him being a political teeanger.
          Brother DUO’s political masturbation will ruin this nation. I am only worrying of the destitute that are really starving right at the moment.
          Bps made their doctored docs in order to show IMF or other bodies, now the srilanken poverty levels are well exposed to the world.
          :
          Wait and see how many more months the bugger duo would be in power…
          :
          Our predictions are crystal clear though we dont live within the country. ::
          God save ouf poor people !

  • 2
    1

    Doctrine of necessity sounds like an HIV virus in some aspects. It attacks the constitution and any succumbed country has no resurrection or redemption, like Pakistan. Immunity system loses the hold of control. Patient becomes sick of all diseases. Law and Order, Finance, Economy, Parliamentary Democracy, respect for fundamental rights……. everything is gone. Because it cannot be out done by the constitution at the very start, there is no possibility of any antibodies being developed for any one gets in contact. It seems very obvious Pakistani judges will seek for it any time in future. As Justice Asama not a Pakistani by nature (though by birth), she deviated from the country’s political cultural norms in invoking the doctrine. But sadly it is not the end. Lankawe’s Sinhala Intellectuals behave just like Pakistani Judges. Don Stephen broke the S29 just in the same manner. That is followed to date though more robotic and with stamina. We need to wait to see King breaking the constitution without explanation and SC invoking Doctrine of Necessity to substantiate or legalize it.

  • 1
    3

    Jayampathy,

    Thanks for a well articulated professional article on Pakistan sharing with us the trials and tribulations that tormented Pakistan since the day of independence in 1947 frequently swinging violently between democracy and military rule.

    The Pakistani military rulers may have cleverly and frequently used and manipulated the doctrine of necessity to justify their deliberately defiant ascension of power and validate unconstitutional methods adopted.

    But where is the relevance to Sri Lanka. I could not see any parallels between Pakistan and for Sri Lanka to learn any lessons from Pakistan of all the countries in the world..

    Sri Lanka was more or less a democracy and witnessed periodic elections and peaceful change of governments since independence whereas Pakistan was a dictatorship for most of the time since independence…

    Why not elaborate more on the dangers faced to democracy in Sri Lanka by the ruling party in manipulating the doctrine of necessity sighting the corona virus threat for partition ends.

    A follow up is an absolute necessity

  • 5
    2

    Pasqual:

    There should be an actual and specific threat that required immediate action. Then the concerned party must have no realistic alternative to completing the said act.
    The harm caused by the said act must not be greater than the harm avoided.
    Best example… war with LTTE.

    *** What are you talking about. There was no specific threat which required immediate action other than Gotha [laying the Race card to win election. The harm caued by your 71 years of Brutality against the minorities was far greater than the damage caused by LTTE which was colateral fighting to Free ourselves from your Tyranny which has intensified under Gotha.The Economic devastaion sweeping the World and especially Sinkala Lanka has left you in the Dog Houseand you cant even lick your wound

    • 1
      5

      Mr. kali,
      /
      You are partially correct.
      /
      As a country there were two specific threats that required immediate action.
      /
      1. Tamils were self destructing themselves as a race under LTTE.
      And they needed our help.
      2. Threat to the independence and sovereignty of the country.
      /
      Do you really believe that “Economic devastaion” will affect only Sinhalese…??

      • 4
        0

        Pasqual

        Tamils were self destructing themselves as a race under LTTE.
        And they needed our help.

        *** What a load of rubbish. Needed your help for what. Man you are a killer race.

      • 4
        0

        Pasqual

        I missed the following.

        Do you really believe that “Economic devastaion” will affect only Sinhalese…

        *** Yes I do because the Tamils or the Tamil Areas were never stakeholders in the Prosperity which was the luxury of the Majority. So we cant be any worse off than we already are. In my view Sri Lanka like Nazi Germany should be grazed to the ground and rebuit.

  • 5
    2

    Doctrine Of Necessity: Lessons For Sri Lanka From Pakistan:

    *** The comparison between Pakistan and Sri Lnka is that in both Countries the Military has a firm Grip in the running of the Country. The differene is that in Pakistan the Military imposes its will on any Government which is a factor. But in Sri Lanka the Military takes its Orders from the rulers to impose authoritarian rule such as Gotha and they do it in Tandem.

  • 13
    4

    Mr Jayampathi, With the constitution project shelved by the ‘leader’ Ranil, and UNP reduced to just 17 MPs, and you handing over your MP free-ticket to a male nurse ‘pandam karaya’, you seem to have started to teach law to the ignorant Sri Lankans.
    ]
    I have a qyestion.
    ]
    Was the constitution you drafted – with a Federal system (with no authority to the central government) – and was duly rubbished by the country as a whole, was based on the doctrine of necessity?
    ]
    If so, please tell us whose necessity it was.
    ]
    Thank you.

  • 3
    8

    Who will take control after Dictator (Former military commander) Gotabaya? Is it Kamal Gunaratne? or Is it Shavendra? What about the dream of Mahinda becoming 3rd time and passing on it to Namal?

    • 5
      1

      Ajith

      After Gotha the ruins will be taken over by Undertakers with only dead bodies

  • 2
    7

    The author is at great pains to emulate the salient feature of this doctrine of necessity in reference to a historical development in Pakistan. Why does he not state in a direct and forth right fashion that Sri Lanka is showing signs of the same arbitrary application of the doctrine of necessity under the guise of Corona control. Do you not see the features of replacing democratic and civil liberties with the introduction of an authoritarian military rule by the executive despot. Say this in a direct fashion and I am sure you agree that your motive behind this article is to make a prediction of similarity evolving in Sri Lanka.
    What do we do? Our forefathers fought and scarified their lives for the protection of democratic and civil values and get ready to do the same because there is a great erosion of these vales NOW. Sri Lanka no doubt goes round in circles in history. What a travesty.

  • 3
    10

    Quite an interesting piece. Beware of the military junta in Sri Lanka

    • 3
      3

      Saravana15,
      Only Tiger Cubs have to beware.

  • 2
    1

    After the Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse’s meeting with TNA Mahinda Rajapakse is very happy with TNA but UNP is unhappy with TNA. I always told in this forum that Mahinda Rajapakse will do anything to Come to Power. TNA will not go to support Mahinda unless they have an agreement with Mahinda on the matters related to Provincial Council in the Constitution. I am sure the discussions could have been going for some time and the participation in the meeting is just to show the public that it is a corona meeting. I am not going to discuss in this forum at this point what agreements they would have come out during their secret discussions. Mahinda knew well he cannot get two third majority without the contribution of Tamil votes or Muslim votes. So, he might have agreed to more powers to Provincial councils in the new constitution (probably similar to what the UNP recent proposals) order to get the two third majority. We will see some positive propaganda from Weerawansa, Gammanpila and even Asgiriya monks in support of giving land and police powers to North East province. We should take account of USA ambassadors meeting with Mahinda and getting the donation from USA.

  • 1
    0

    Ajith.

    The TNA accepting the invitation of the Prime Minister and attending the meeting was also based on the doctrine of Necessity!

    President Gotas name appearing in the latest publication of the US Federal Register of individuals who have renounced US Citizenship and the points that you have made above in your comment may also be in the realms of necessity.

    But, frankly it was not necessary for Dr. Jayampathy W.to renounce his seat in Parliament. He was an able Parliamentarian.

  • 4
    0

    Chief Moderator
    CT

    Duty beckons to use your investigative skills to unravel the TRUTH.
    “Prez’s name appears in Federal Register of those renounced US citizenship”

    There is something not quite right.
    The first heading was as follows “ Gothas name appears in the list of people who have EXPATRIATED .
    Definition: However, the term ‘expatriate’ is also used for retirees and others who have chosen to live outside their native country. “
    *** Why was the heading changed and no doubt whoever put up this false message which has now become a ritual realized the mistake which by definition means any American who chooses to live outside of US for whatever reasons and decided to rephrase it as US doesn’t produce a list of those who Expatriated . Gothas name strangely enough is in much bigger letters may be to highlight he is a World Leader.

    But whatever it is when Gotha was appointed as Defence Secretary he was an American Citizen and committed all the Crimes as an American . Under American Law he can be prosecuted for past liabilities just as the Californian Judge Stated in his Judgment When he became Defence Secretary Dual Nationality was not in operation. Even when he was elected President he was an American and Under the Constitution barred from being elected President.
    Hope you can enlighten us.

  • 1
    0

    I am trying to figure out what Dr. JW is trying to tell us. Is it merely a lesson of the recent judicio-political history of Pakistan. If so I thank him for the information. Is he also letting us know that even in Sri Lanka this could be applied? If so, how? My imagination runs riot. As a method of containing the insurgency of the South in late 1980’s, a lot have seen the tyre pyres and other forms of “extra-judicial” executions. The military at that time claimed it was necessary to contain it, which the Colombo 7 gentry fully concurred and lots of shots were fired in the Colombo-7 Race Couse. Is the doctrine of necessity applicable there? Is the doctrine of necessity applicable similarly for situations of extra-judicial executions in the Northern Province? A country is engulfed in a “Pandemic” when the legislature stands dissolved. The Elections Commission “fixes” dates so that any convening of a new Parliament is beyond the Constitutionally mandated time limits. Does the doctrine of necessity apply in violating the Constitutional Provisions? The concept “Necessity knows no law” is within jurists. Other than instances cited in the statute can it be further “stretched”?

  • 3
    0

    A in a great fire pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading, sometimes spreading in allowed noting get benifit according to the situation.Sometimes you have to lose what you’ve got, in order to gain something new.

  • 0
    0

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.

    For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.