Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer
Choose language:

Administrative

Doctrine of Legitimate expectations under administrative law

The principle of legitimate expectations means that expectations raised by administrative conduct have to be respected and fulfilled, at least for the public interest, unless betterment demands otherwise.  And non-fulfillment can have some serious legal consequences.  The main role played by the courts in the entire transaction of this doctrine is to safeguard individuals’ expectations in the face of changes in policy.

Legitimate expectation is a concept in administrative law that refers to the reasonable expectation of a person or a group of people to be treated in a certain way by a public authority, such as a government agency or a court. Legitimate expectations can arise from:

  • An express promise or assurance made by the authority.
  • A regular practice or policy of the authority.
  • A legal provision or a general principle of law.

Legitimate expectations can be classified into two types:

  • Procedural legitimate expectation: This is the expectation of a fair and transparent process before a decision affecting one’s rights or interests is made by the authority. For example, a person may have a legitimate expectation to be given a hearing or a notice before their license is revoked.
  • Substantive legitimate expectation: This is the expectation of a favorable outcome or a benefit from the authority based on its promise, practice, or policy. For example, a person may have a legitimate expectation to receive a grant or a subsidy if they meet the eligibility criteria.

Legitimate expectation is not an absolute right but a ground for judicial review of administrative actions. If the authority breaches the legitimate expectation of a person or a group of people, the court may intervene and order the authority to:

  • Fulfill the legitimate expectation.
  • Provide a valid justification for departing from the legitimate expectation.
  • Compensate the affected person or group for the loss or damage caused by the breach.

Legitimate expectation is a dynamic and evolving concept that aims to protect the interests of the people and promote good governance, accountability, and fairness in public administration.

Legitimate expectation under administrative law in India is similar to the concept in the UK, but with some differences. According to the Supreme Court of India, a legitimate expectation is:

  • A right that arises from the principles of natural justice, equity, and good conscience
  • A reasonable and rational expectation of a person or a group of people from a public authority based on its past actions, representations, or promises
  • A flexible and pragmatic tool to ensure fairness and justice in administrative actions
  • A ground for judicial review of administrative actions, but not a source of substantive rights

Some of the case laws that illustrate the concept of legitimate expectation in India are:

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of administrative law that grants a person the right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their interests. The doctrine is based on the idea that a person who has a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome from a public authority should not be disappointed by a sudden change of policy or action by the authority.

In India, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was first recognized by the Supreme Court in the case of Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Union of India (1992), where the court held that the allottees of flats under a housing scheme had a legitimate expectation of getting possession of the flats as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, and any arbitrary cancellation of the allotment by the authority would violate their right to a fair hearing.

Some other cases where the doctrine of legitimate expectation was applied in India are:

  • Union of India vs. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993): The court held that the respondent company had a legitimate expectation of getting a renewal of its mining lease as per the previous practice of the government, and the government’s refusal to renew the lease without giving any reasons or hearing the company was arbitrary and unjust.
  • Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993): The court held that the appellant corporation had a legitimate expectation of getting a supply of rice bran from the respondent industry as per the agreement between them, and the industry’s unilateral termination of the agreement without any notice or opportunity to the corporation was illegal and unfair.
  • Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society (2013): The court held that the respondent society had a legitimate expectation of getting a lease of land from the appellant corporation as per the allotment letter issued by the corporation, and the corporation’s cancellation of the allotment on the ground of non-payment of dues without giving any notice or hearing to the society was violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Limitations or Restrictions of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The restriction of legitimate expectation is a concept that limits the scope and application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in administrative law. The doctrine of legitimate expectation grants a person the right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their interests based on a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome from the authority.

However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not an absolute or inflexible rule of law but a flexible and pragmatic tool of justice. It is subject to certain restrictions, such as:

  • The doctrine cannot override or contradict the statutory provisions or the public interest.
  • The doctrine cannot create a substantive right or entitlement that does not exist in law.
  • The doctrine cannot be invoked to challenge a policy decision or a legislative act of the government.
  • The doctrine cannot be based on an illegal, irrational, or unreasonable expectation.
  • The doctrine cannot be applied retrospectively to nullify a valid decision or action of the authority.

These restrictions are meant to balance the interests of the individual and the authority and to prevent the abuse or misuse of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Some of the cases where the restriction of legitimate expectation was applied are:

  • Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Kant (1995): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to challenge the policy decision of the government to abolish the post of General Manager in the corporation, as it was a matter of public interest and administrative efficiency, and the petitioner had no legal right or entitlement to the post.
  • Reliance Energy Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (2007): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot create a substantive right or entitlement in favour of the respondent company to get the contract for the construction of a bridge, as it was subject to the statutory provisions and the competitive bidding process, and the appellant corporation had the discretion to award the contract to the best bidder.
  • State of Bihar vs. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be based on an illegal or irrational expectation, and the respondent company had no legitimate expectation of getting a renewal of its license to manufacture liquor, as it was contrary to the prohibition policy of the state government and the public interest.

I hope this helps you understand the restriction of legitimate expectation better. 😊

If you have any other questions or requests, please feel free to ask me. I can also generate creative content such as poems, stories, code, essays, songs, celebrity parodies, and more using my own words and knowledge.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of administrative law that grants a person the right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their interests. The doctrine is based on the idea that a person who has a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome from a public authority should not be disappointed by a sudden change of policy or action by the authority.

Doctrine of Proportionality

The doctrine of proportionality is applicable in cases where rights are violated by administrative action and the courts scrutinize administrative conduct specifically and go to court. Issue about the accuracy of the authority’s choices.

The ordinary sense of proportionality is that it should not be more extreme than it should be to achieve the desired results. It means you cannot use a canon to fire a sparrow. This philosophy, in other words, seeks to balance means with ends.

Irrationality as a ground and legitimate expectation to challenge any decision was developed by the Court in Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury, later to be known as the “Wednesbury test” to determine ‘irrationality’ of an administrative action decision of the administrative authority shall be deemed to be irrational.

  • if it is beyond the authority of law,
  • if it is not based on evidence,
  • if it is based on irrelevant consideration,
  • if it is so absurd in its violation of logic or established moral standards that no reasonable person may make such a decision on the facts and circumstances in question.

In other words, it is so ridiculous that no reasonable person would ever believe that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the government. In a practical sense, it is the use of the doctrine.

The doctrine of proportionality is a legal principle that states that the actions or measures taken by a public authority must be proportionate to the objective pursued. In other words, the authority should not use more force or impose more restrictions than necessary to achieve a legitimate goal.

The doctrine of proportionality is often applied in the fields of human rights, constitutional law, international law, and criminal law. For example, the European Court of Human Rights uses the doctrine of proportionality to assess whether the interference of a state with the rights and freedoms of individuals is justified and reasonable.

The doctrine of proportionality has four main components:

  • Suitability: The measure must be suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective.
  • Necessity: The measure must be necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective. There must be no less restrictive alternative available.
  • Proportionality in the strict sense: The measure must be proportional or balanced in relation to the objective. The benefits of the measure must outweigh the costs or harm to the rights and interests of the affected parties.
  • Fair balance: The measure must strike a fair balance between the general interest of the community and the individual rights of the persons concerned. The measure must not impose an excessive or disproportionate burden on individuals.

The theory of proportionality is applicable in cases where human freedoms are violated by administrative action. In such a case, the courts scrutinize administrative conduct specifically and go to court about the accuracy of the authority’s choices. Adverse effects on the right would therefore be weighed by the courts and the purpose sought to be accomplished, where the issue of the quantity of penalty levied by the regulatory authority is concerned, would not be subject to strict scrutiny. Courts follow the idea that while the quantity of punishment is beyond the regulatory authority’s control, it is important to prevent arbitrariness.

This concept can be called the’ deference concept, where the court shows consideration for the regulatory authority’s option except when the option is manifestly excessive.

When evaluating an administrative action on the grounds of proportionality Courts typically consider two issues, namely:

1. Whether the relative merits of specific objectives or interests have been properly weighed and equally balanced?

2. Whether the action under review was, in the circumstances, excessively restrictive or inflicted an unnecessary burden?

In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham  (1997) 7 SCC 463, the Supreme Court held that rule of proportionality is fully applicable in constitutional adjudication where the court has to decide on the reasonableness of a restriction on the exercise of fundamental rights. However, its application in the field of administrative law is still in an evolving stage. At the present, the doctrine is not available in administrative law in the sense that the court cannot go into the question of choice made and priority fixed by the administrator.

Om Kumar v Union of India (2001): This case concerned the fundamental right to equality and the power of judicial review. Om Kumar and other employees of the public sector undertakings challenged the government’s decision to reduce their salaries and allowances as part of a financial restructuring plan. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to equality, as it was not proportionate to the objective of reviving the public sector undertakings. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective, as it did not take into account the performance and efficiency of the employees. The court also found that the government’s decision was not necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective, as there were other less drastic measures available, such as reducing the managerial staff, improving the productivity, and enhancing the competitiveness. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportional or balanced in relation to the objective, as it imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on the employees, who were already underpaid and overworked.

State of Maharashtra v Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (2008): This case concerned the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the power of preventive detention. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and other film producers and distributors challenged the government’s decision to detain them under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), alleging that they had links with the underworld and were involved in financing terrorist activities. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to freedom of speech and expression, as it was not proportionate to the objective of preventing terrorism. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not rationally connected to the objective, as it did not have any credible evidence or material to support the allegations against the detainees. The court also found that the government’s decision was not minimally impairing, as it used the most drastic and draconian measure of preventive detention, without exhausting the other legal remedies available, such as investigation, prosecution, and trial. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportionate in its effects, as it caused severe and irreparable harm to the detainees’ reputation, livelihood, and liberty.

  • Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020): This case concerned the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to access the internet. Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of Kashmir Times, and other petitioners challenged the government’s decision to impose a complete shutdown of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir, following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to the state. The Supreme Court of India held that the government’s decision violated the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to access the internet, as it was not proportionate to the objective of maintaining public order and national security. The court applied the doctrine of proportionality and found that the government’s decision was not suitable or appropriate for achieving the objective, as it was not based on any specific threat or exigency, but on a general apprehension of violence. The court also found that the government’s decision was not necessary or indispensable for achieving the objective, as there were other less restrictive measures available, such as blocking specific websites, imposing reasonable restrictions on the duration and area of the shutdown, and providing periodic review and oversight. The court also found that the government’s decision was not proportional or balanced in relation to the objective, as it caused immense and indiscriminate hardship to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who were deprived of their fundamental rights, essential services, and economic opportunities.