Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Indian Laws - General

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I(I) 151,the concept of legitimate expectation has been elucidated on, and for the sake of convenience, the same is being extracted herein: Legitimate expectations . A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way but an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practice. The existence of a legitimate expectation may have a number of different consequences; it may give locus standi to seek leave to apply for judicial review; it may mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so; or it may mean that, if the authority proposes to defeat a person's legitimate expectation, it must afford him an opportunity to make representations on the matter. The Courts also distinguish, for example in licensing cases, between original applications, applications to renew and revocations; a party who has been granted a licence may have a legitimate expectation that it will be renewed unless there is some good reason not to do so, and may therefore be entitled to greater procedural protection than a mere applicant for a grant. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first introduced to Indian jurisprudence in the case of State Of Kerala Ors. vs. K.G. Madhavan Pillai Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 669 . In the aforesaid case, the government had issued a sanction in favour of the respondent therein to open a new school and to upgrade certain already existing schools. However, subsequent to the abovementioned sanction, a new direction was given by the government to keep the said sanction in abeyance. This Court, while deciding the said issue, was of the opinion that the original sanction given by the government gave rise to a legitimate expectation in the minds of the respondents. This legitimate expectation was however breached by the subsequent direction for abeyance, and hence there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The doctrine of legitimate expectation finds its home within the doctrine of rule of law and is a limb of Article 14 that fights against the contamination of arbitrary state action and misuse of power. In all the above mentioned judgments that discuss the limitations of legitimate expectation, what is most important, is the principle that public interest is supreme. Scope and limitations of the doctrine of legitimate expectations, I find it essential to chart out the following principles for the application of legitimate expectations: I. The expectation must be reasonable : The expectation of the individual or group must be reasonable and not based on any arbitrary or irrational grounds. The expectation must be based on an established practice or a clear promise made by the public authority. II. The expectation must be based on a clear representation : The expectation must be based on a clear and unambiguous representation made by the public authority. III. The representation must be made by an authorized person : The representation must be made by an authorized person or body within the public authority. The authority must have the power and competence to make such a representation. IV. The representation must be legitimate : The representation made by the public authority must be legitimate and not against any law or policy. It must also not be against any public interest or public policy. V. The public interest must be demonstrated : If a legitimate expectation is being taken away by way of a modification to an existing policy on grounds of public interest, such public interest must be demonstrated by the said modification. VI. Public Interest must supersede change in policy : In cases where a legitimate expectation is being taken away by way of a modification to policy, such modification must not be antithesis to public policy, and if such a modification runs counter to public interest, the remedy of legitimate expectation would become exercisable. VII. The expectation must be based on a legitimate interest : The expectation must be based on a legitimate interest of the individual or group. It must not be based on any vested interest or personal gain. VIII. The expectation must be protected : Once a legitimate expectation is created, it must be protected and not arbitrarily or capriciously withdrawn by the public authority. The public authority must provide a reasonable opportunity for the individual or group to be heard before any decision is taken to withdraw or modify the expectation. [M/S. K.B. TEA PRODUCT PVT. LTD.- 2023 (5) TMI 595 - SUPREME COURT] In NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION- 1998 (8) TMI 597 - SUPREME COURT , doctrine of Legitimate Expectation has been explained- The doctrine of Legitimate Expectation has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is making to violation of natural justice. It was in this context that the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was evolved which has today became a source of substantive as well as procedural rights. But claims based on Legitimate Expectation have been held to require reliance on representations and resulting detriment to the claimant in the same way as claims based on promissory estoppel. Lord Scarman in R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. Preston (1985) AC 835 laid down emphatically that unfairness in the purported exercise of power can amount to an abuse or excess of power. Thus the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation has been developed, both in the context of reasonableness and in the context of natural justice. Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374 laid down that doctrine of legitimate Expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the Court has some person aggrieved either (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he had received assurance from the decision-maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn. (Emphasis supplied). The Indian scenario in the field of Legitimate Expectation is not different. In fact, this Court, in several of its decisions, has explained the doctrine in no uncertain terms. This Court further observed as under:- The existence of 'legitimate expectation' may have a number of different consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the legitimate expectation' without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In a case of 'legitimate expectation' if the authority proposes to defeat a person's 'legitimate expectation' it should afford him an opportunity to make representations in the matter............................. ............... It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation' the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. This doctrine was reiterated in M.P. Oil Extraction and another vs. State of M.P. and others, 1997 (7) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT , in which it was also laid down that though the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fair play in administrative action, it may, in a given situation, be enforced as a substantive right.