This paper delves into the doctrine of legitimate expectation under administrative law, focusing on its core principles and impact. The doctrine, akin to natural justice, ensures fairness, trust, and accountability in government actions, regulating authority and promoting equality.

The paper begins by elaborating on the concept of the doctrine. It distinguishes procedural and substantive aspects, emphasizing a balanced approach between individual expectations and public interests. It highlights how legitimate expectation safeguards individuals' rights to fair procedures amid governmental decisions. The paper also answers the question of whether the doctrine is a legal right or not.

Furthermore, it discusses the doctrine's key elements and its limitations. The paper also aims to explain the doctrine of legitimate expectation by comparing it with doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Lastly, the author critically analyses the doctrine, weighing its benefits and drawbacks and evaluating in today's world.

Introduction
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a fundamental principle in administrative law that protects individuals' rights and expectations in their dealings with public authorities. It is rooted in the concept of fairness, reasonableness, and the rule of law.

At its core, the doctrine recognizes that individuals have a legitimate expectation that public authorities will act in a consistent, fair, and transparent manner, especially when those authorities have made specific representations or promises to individuals or groups. These expectations can arise from past practices, established policies, formal statements, or specific assurances given by public officials.

Legitimate expectations can arise from in 3 cases, when there is:

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

While the doctrine of legitimate expectation provides protection to individuals and promotes accountability in public administration, it is not an absolute right. Public authorities may have valid reasons to depart from legitimate expectations in certain circumstances, such as national security, public safety, or changes in legal or policy frameworks. However, such departures must be justified, proportionate, and consistent with legal principles.

This doctrine plays a vital role in maintaining trust, fairness, and accountability in the relationship between individuals and public authorities. It reinforces the rule of law, promotes procedural justice, and ensures that administrative decisions are made in a transparent, consistent, and lawful manner.

Concept
First conceptualised by Lord Denning in 1969,[1] legitimate expectation is described as an expectation that deserves protection, though it may not rise to the level of a conventional legal right. Administrative bodies often establish policies, regulations, and actions that generate a legitimate expectation, and any modification or withdrawal of this expectation can lead to the individual or a group of individuals losing that expectation and associated freedom.

The concept of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation revolves around the idea that individuals or entities interacting with public authorities have a legitimate right to expect those authorities to act in a manner consistent with their promises, representations, or established practices. This expectation is considered legitimate if it meets certain criteria, including clarity, reasonableness, reliance, and fairness.

In simpler terms, if a public authority makes a clear promise or commitment to an individual or group, and the individual or group reasonably relies on that promise, the authority is expected to honor it. This principle ensures that public authorities act fairly and transparently, maintain trust with citizens, and prevent arbitrary exercises of power. It also provides a legal basis for individuals to challenge administrative decisions that violate their legitimate expectations through judicial review or other legal avenues.

The foundation of legitimate expectation is rooted in Article 14[2] (Right to Equality) of the Constitution and the concept of fairness.

In Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [3] the Apex Court held, "a person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course".

The doctrine of legitimate expectation parallels the principles of natural justice, fostering fairness, reliance, trust in the government, and equality within the administrative and legal systems. It holds government authorities accountable for their actions, promoting regulation and oversight of power and authority.

Legitimate expectations can be categorized into two distinct types:

1. Procedural legitimate expectation: It arises when an individual expects a public authority to follow a particular procedure or process in reaching a decision that affects their rights or interests. This expectation may stem from past practices, established procedures, or specific assurances given by the authority. If the authority departs from the promised or expected procedure without a valid reason, it may be challenged in court. Therefore, adhering to the principle of "procedural legitimate expectation" entails issuing notice and offering a fair opportunity to the decision-maker before reaching any conclusions. For example, an individual may expect to be provided with a hearing or formal notice prior to the revocation of their license.
    
2. Substantive legitimate expectation: This refers to the anticipation of a favorable outcome or benefit from the authority based on its explicit promise, established practice, or official policy. If the authority deviates from the promised or expected outcome without justification, it may be subject to judicial review. For instance, an individual may legitimately expect to receive a grant or subsidy if they fulfill the stipulated eligibility criteria.
    

In the case of Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.[4] (1999), the Supreme Court established that legitimate expectation can encompass both procedural and substantive elements. As per the court, this aligned with the rule of law concept, which emphasizes fairness in both procedural processes and substantive outcomes. The procedural aspect of legitimate expectation entailed granting the right to a hearing or appropriate procedure before the authority modifies its previous decision. On the other hand, the substantive aspect involved the provision or continuation of a substantial benefit. The court emphasized that both aspects should be honored for the claimant. If this is not feasible, the authorities must provide valid reasons and offer a fair opportunity to the individual before making a decision or issuing an order.

Is It A Legal Right?
An individual with a legitimate expectation does not possess a legal entitlement under this doctrine in administrative matters. Since it lacks legal standing, its enforceability is not absolute and may vary depending on the circumstances. This doctrine is a judicially crafted concept, leaving its enforceability to the discretion of the courts.

Hence, legitimate expectation does not constitute a legal right granted to an individual, nor does it impose an obligation on administrative authorities. Instead, it serves as a procedural consideration for courts to exercise their power of judicial review over administrative actions affecting the individual in question, as deemed necessary.

Key Elements
The key elements of legitimate expectation encompass several essential components that define and determine the legitimacy of such expectations in administrative law. These elements are crucial in evaluating whether an individual or group has a valid basis for expecting a certain treatment, benefit, or process from a public authority.[5] Thus, the key elements of this doctrine are:

• There must be a Promise or Representation: The expectation must stem from a clear promise, representation, or assurance made by a public authority. This can be an explicit commitment, an implied understanding based on established practices, or a representation through official communications or policies. Public authorities are generally bound by their past actions, statements, or policies that have created legitimate expectations. They cannot arbitrarily depart from established practices or assurances without valid reasons.
   
• The promise must be clear and specific: The promise or representation must be clear, specific, and unambiguous to create a legitimate expectation. Vague or general statements may not suffice unless they can reasonably be interpreted to generate a legitimate expectation. The individual or group affected by the expectation should be aware of the promise or representation made by the public authority. Clear communication of rights, entitlements, or procedures is essential for the creation and protection of legitimate expectations.
   
• Must be reasonable: The expectation must be reasonable and founded on legitimate grounds. Courts assess whether a reasonable person in the claimant's position would expect the public authority to act in a certain way based on the circumstances and assurances provided.
   
• Must be Legitimate: The expectation must be legitimate, meaning it should align with legal principles, statutory provisions, established practices, or previous assurances provided by the public authority. Illegitimate or unlawful expectations would not be protected under the doctrine. Legitimate expectation is closely tied to principles of fairness, equity, and natural justice. The expectation should be based on fair treatment and should not lead to arbitrary or unjust outcomes.
   
• Reliance: The individual or group must have reasonably relied on the promise or representation to their detriment or disadvantage. Reliance can take various forms, such as making decisions, taking actions, or foregoing other opportunities based on the expectation created.
   
• Public Interest and Discretion: The doctrine of legitimate expectation is balanced with public interest, administrative discretion, and the need for flexible governance. This doctrine does not give courts unfettered and unrestricted power to review governmental actions. Authorities can deviate from legitimate expectations if there are strong reasons for the public interest, national security, and in furtherance of the democratic process. There are a number of limitations to this doctrine, which allows for deviation from legitimate expectations.

Limitations
In the landmark case of Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.,[6] the Supreme Court highlighted certain defenses that can render the plea of legitimate expectation inapplicable. The Court noted that factors such as public interest, policy changes, the behavior of the expectant, or any other valid and genuine reasons provided by the decision-maker may be adequate to nullify the claim of 'legitimate expectation.' Therefore, legitimate expectation does have exceptions, and further examination of these exceptions is warranted.

• National Security and Public Interest: Legitimate expectation may be limited in cases involving national security or public interest considerations. Public authorities are expected and supposed to prioritize national security and public interest over individual expectations and interests, leading to limitations on the doctrine's application.
• Administrative Discretion: The doctrine's scope can be limited by administrative discretion. Public authorities have the discretion to make decisions based on policy considerations, which may override individual expectations in certain circumstances.
• Legal Constraints: Legitimate expectation is subject to legal constraints such as statutory provisions, established legal principles and the overall legal framework. Expectations that go against the legal principles or are based on unlawful actions are not protected under this doctrine.
• Policy and Legislative Decisions: This doctrine cannot be used to challenge government policy decisions or legislative acts. This is due to the principle of separation of powers and the democratic processes followed in India.
• Reasonableness Test: The scope of legitimate expectation is often assessed based on the reasonableness of the expectation. Unreasonable expectations or expectations that are not based on clear promises, representations or established practices may not be held to be valid. Expectation cannot be based on illegal, irrational, or unreasonable expectations, upholding the principles of legality and rational decision-making.
• Change in Circumstances: Legitimate expectation may be limited if there is a significant change in circumstances or if the public authority provides valid reasons for altering or withdrawing the expectation. Authorities may justify changes based on policy shifts, new information, or public interest considerations.

Comparison With The Doctrine Of Promissory Estoppel
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel stems from the Doctrine of Estoppel, which is backed by Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[7]  "When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing." This doctrine originally finds its origins under English Law by Justice Denning's obiter dicta in Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd,[8] where the court ruled that promising to reduce rent and then increasing it would affect the parties' legal obligations.

It is a concept of Contract law. Though not mentioned in the Indian Contract Act 1872,[9] it was recommended by the Law Commission to be added as a new Section 25A in its 108th report. This doctrine basically refers to the situation wherein one party, through words or conduct, makes a clear promise intended to create or affect a legal relationship, knowing that the other party will rely on it, and the other party does indeed rely on it and to an act or omit to do one which would be done otherwise, the promise becomes binding.

The party making the promise cannot retract it if doing so would be unfair or inequitable on the party acting based on the promise. The doctrine is based on the principles of obligation and equity, rather than vested rights. In applying this doctrine, the court must balance individual rights with the public interest.

In India, the doctrine of promissory estoppel was fully articulated in the case of Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies.[10] Previously, promissory estoppel had not been applied against the government, but this case marked a significant change. To boost the export of woolen garments to Afghanistan, the government announced specific modifications regarding the import of certain raw materials. However, it later permitted only limited modifications, failing to fulfill the original promise. The Supreme Court held the government liable, establishing that it could be bound by its promises. This case led to the acceptance of promissory estoppel against the government in India.

Another landmark case in applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the government is Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.[11] In this case, the Chief Secretary assured all new industrial units a three-year sales tax exemption to help them establish themselves. Relying on this, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills set up a hydrogenation plant with a substantial loan. Later, the government changed its policy to varying rates of sales tax exemption. The appellant argued they invested and raised loans based on the original promise. The Supreme Court held that the government was bound by its initial promise and was liable to grant the appellants a full sales tax exemption for three years from the start of production.

Though it is a concept under contract law, it is closely related to Doctrine of legitimate expectation as both the doctrines aim to protect individual rights and are based on principles of obligations and equity. Both the doctrines make promises binding and liable for action if they cause the other party to act a certain way, relying on the said promise made.

The difference between the two doctrines arises from their nature. Doctrine of promissory estoppel is a concept under Contract Law thus, protecting the rights of private individuals against actions of both, private individuals as well as public authorities. A key element of the doctrine is that there must be an intention to form a legal relationship by the party making the promise. Furthermore, the plaintiff must have committed an action or omission which caused some sort of injury or loss to him or her.

On the other hand, doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle under administrative law and so applicable to everyone and actionable only against public authorities. In this, there is no intention to form legal relationship and no action or omission by the plaintiff based on the promise is required. The key element in this doctrine is that there must be a promise made by the public authority which would give rise to a legitimate expectation in the mind of a reasonable man.

Relevance And Critical Appraisal
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a fundamental principle in administrative law that ensures individuals have the right to a fair hearing or procedure when a public authority's decision affects their interests. It protects the rights and interests of individuals against unfair and unjust treatment by public authorities. This principle is rooted in the belief that individuals who reasonably expect a specific outcome from a public authority should not be surprised or disadvantaged by abrupt policy changes or actions by the authority.

This doctrine helps in holding public authorities accountable for their express or implied promises, which promotes fairness and trust between the government and the public. Not only does it act as a check against arbitrary administrative decisions, it also reinforces procedural rights by ensuring that individuals can challenge anything which may harm their expectations from the public authorities.

However, this doctrine is also subject to wide criticism on various grounds. One of the primary criticisms is the subjective nature of what constitutes a "legitimate" expectation. The criteria for establishing such expectations can be vague and open to interpretation, leading to inconsistent application. It may also be argued that excessive reliance on this doctrine can lead to judicial overreach, where courts interfere too much in administrative decisions, thereby disrupting the principle of separation of power between the judiciary and executive. Furthermore, it may be too burdensome on the public authorities to keep in mind any expectation which the public may have. This can also lead to delays in implementations of polices.

In today's dynamic socio-political environment, the doctrine of legitimate expectation remains relevant but must be applied judiciously. In an era where public trust in government institutions is often low, upholding legitimate expectations can play a crucial role in restoring confidence and ensuring accountability. In today's world, marked by interconnectedness between nations, international norms and practices also play a major role in shaping expectations of the public from the government and focus should also be placed on this.

Conclusion
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a vital component of administrative law that enhances fairness and accountability in public administration.

While it can be invoked even when no specific legal rights are conferred by statute, it is essential to consider public policy and interest, which may take precedence over legitimate expectations. The violation of this doctrine can be challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, a claim based solely on an expectation, without any legitimate grounds, does not automatically grant the right to invoke these principles.

The doctrine has gained importance in Indian courts, providing standing to individuals with or without direct legal rights. However, its application must be carefully balanced to avoid vagueness, inhibit necessary policy changes, and prevent judicial overreach. As public administration continues to evolve in response to new challenges, the doctrine's relevance persists, necessitating ongoing refinement to meet the needs of a dynamic and diverse society.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been lauded in public law for enabling courts to deliver justice to individuals who may not find relief under statutory provisions. It also holds state authorities accountable and responsible to the people. Ultimately, the doctrine underscores the principle that public power is a trust that should be exercised in the best interest of the people, emphasizing accountability, fairness, and justice in administrative actions.

References:

1. Jain, M.P., Changing Face of Administrative Law in India and Abroad.
2. Basu, D.D., Human Rights in Constitutional Law.
3. Massey, I. P., Administrative Law, EBC.
4. Jain, M.P, Jain, S.N, Principle of Administrative Law.

End Notes:

1. LawBhoomi, "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Administrative Law", https://lawbhoomi.com/legitimate-expectation/
2. Foram R. Patel & Rishin Patel, "The Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation: From Development In England To Indian Scenario", ILI Review, Winter Issue 2021, https://ili.ac.in/pdf/win21_8.pdf
3. Lawnotes, "Doctrine of Legitimate expectations under administrative law", https://lawnotes.co/doctrine-of-legitimate-expectations-under-administrative-law/
4. CA Manoj Nahata, "Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Meaning, Concept & Its Application", Taxman, https://www.taxmann.com/research/income-tax/top-story/105010000000022376/doctrine-of-legitimate-expectation-meaning-concept-its-application-experts-opinion?utm_source=Article&utm_medium
5. iPleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/legitimate-expectaion/
6. Sarica AR, "Doctrine of legitimate expectations," ACADEMIKE, https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-legitimate-expectations/
7. Schmidt v. Secretary of state for Home Affair, MANU/UKWA/0008/1968.
8. India Consti., Art 19.
9. MANU/SC/4176/2006.
10. MANU/SC/0326/1999.
11. Id. at 4.
12. Supra note 3.
13. Indian Evidence Act 1872, s.115, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872.
14. [1947] KB 130.
15. Indian Contract Act 1872, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872.
16. MANU/SC/0021/1967.
17. MANU/SC/0336/1978.

Written By: Samriddhi Aggarwal