Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

Introduction

A man must keep his promise. This is specifically true if the promise is not just a promise, but is made with the intention that the other party will act accordingly. The principle of ” Legitimate expectation” is one of several tools that courts have introduced to consider administrative actions. It is challenging to categorise the many different functions of administrative law. As a result, numerous ideologies and guiding principles have been developed to ensure that the administration runs smoothly. And the “legitimate expectation” are one of the ideologies. In administrative law, the doctrine of legitimate expectations is a key idea. The principle of legitimate expectations creates locus standi [legal position] for victims to raise concerns or challenge the administrative actions related to a particular condition in the form of expectations. This theory serves as a protective mechanism for the rights of a party who has been wronged based on a “legitimate expectation”. This particular idea has typically been applied in the context of natural justice.

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.

The relationship between a person and a public authority is covered by this doctrine. This doctrine states that in the absence of a “legitimate expectation,” the public authority may be held accountable. A person can legitimately expect to be treated in a particular way by an administrative authority, based on consistent past practice or an express promise made by the relevant authority. Even if a person does not have a legal right under private law to receive a certain treatment from an administrative authority, they may still have a reasonable expectation of it. A representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or a pattern of consistent behaviour in the past may have given rise to the expectation. According to this doctrine, it is possible to hold administrative authorities accountable if there is justified expectation. “Reasonable expectations” need not necessarily derive from legal rights, but the principle of legitimate expectations also rest where there are expectations derived from promises or an established practice. However, it is important to point out that the legitimate expectation must always be true and reasonable. This doctrine requires fairness in administrative decisions arising from promises or established practices. According to the doctrine, a public official has a responsibility when he makes an express or implied promise that gives rise to an individual’s expectation. By taking into account all relevant factors referring to legitimate expectation. Additionally, it places a duty on the public authority to refrain from acting in violation of a legitimate expectation unless there is a valid public policy justification for doing so.

Origin and development of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations in English Law.

Court discusses how principle of legitimate expectations first established in English law.

In the case of Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1], the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the plaintiffs. The Court held that there had been no requirement to hear the plaintiffs. Under the Aliens Order, 1953 the Secretary of State had the power to refuse the entry or an extension without giving reason. The Government’s policy regarding scientology could not be challenged. The Secretary of State acted reasonably and properly with the public interest in mind. Since the claimants did not have the right or interest or “legitimate expectation” of which it would not be fair to deprive him without hearing what they had to say, in the instant case there was no natural justice rules infringement.

The Court then discusses the well-known case of A.G. of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu ((1983)[2]

Facts:

The applicant was from Macao and lived illegally in Hong Kong. In 1980, the Government of Hong Kong announced a new policy concerning illegal immigrants from mainland China meaning that the Government would now repatriate them back to their country. Due to the fears these immigrants expressed, the Government told them that each would be interviewed and their cases would be considered individually. Three days later, the claimant received a deportation order. He challenged it arguing that he had a legitimate expectation to a hearing before making the decision.

Held:

In Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu, the Privy Council dismissed Attorney-General’s appeal. Lord Fraser stated in his judgment that some statement or undertaking made by or on behalf of a public authority can create legitimate expectations, as a result it had become “unfair or inconsistent with good administration” to ignore the expectation.

This case can be regarded as a turning point in Indian discourse also because it clearly defines the doctrine’s scope by stating that it does not involve a “crystallised right” and does not open the door to a direct claim for relief. Instead, the doctrine can be limited to the right to a fair hearing in cases where a promise has been withdrawn or rejected. Substantial expectations do not necessarily constitute absolute rights unless the decision maker disregards the public interest and cannot justify withdrawal. The court also said that courts should remain within their jurisdiction and refrain from interfering when it was a matter of policy or policy change. Consequently, legitimate expectations may result in judicial review, but the Court’s ability to grant relief is very constrained.

Origin and development of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations in India.

In the Indian context, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was first brought up in the case of

State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai ((1988) 4 SCC 669).

In this case, the respondents were given a sanction that required them to upgrade their current schools and open a new aided school, but 15 days later, an order was issued to suspending previous sanctions. The respondents contested this Order on the grounds that it went against natural justice principles. The Supreme Court ruled that the sanction had entitled the respondents with legitimate expectation and the second order violated principles of natural justice.

In another Supreme Court case, Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India ((1992) 4 SCC 477), [3]

Navjyoti Co-Op. Group Housing Society V. Union of India in this case supreme court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factor relating to such legitimate expectation within the conspectus of fair dealing such as reasonable opportunity to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy. In this case it was also held that the that person enjoying certain benefits/advantage under the old policy of the Government derive a legitimate expectation even though they may not have any legal right under the private law in the context of its continuance. Allotment of the land by the development authority to co-operative societies was done in the order of seniority of such societies. The seniority was determined on the basis of the date of registration. New criteria were laid down whereby seniority was to be determined with reference to the date of approval of the members of the society by the registrar. The doctrine of legitimate expectation provides that the policy of government or its department should be without discretion.

The Supreme Court elaborated on the nature of the doctrine of legitimate expectations in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries ((1993) 1. S.C.C. 71), [4]

In the Food Corporation of India V/s M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries the corporation invited tender for sale of damage food grains. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries bid was highest. All bidders were, however, invited by the corporation for negotiation. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries did not raise bid but filed a petition contending that since he was the highest bidder, he ought to have been awarded the work. He relied on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The High court allowed the petition. Revising the decision, the SC held that negotiations were held and all bidders were afforded equal opportunity of revising bids. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries ought to have raised the bid if he was interested in getting the contract reliance on the doctrine, on the facts of case was not well founded. SC further stated that non-arbitrariness , fairness in action and due consideration of legitimate expectation of the affected party are the essential requisites for a valid state action. It has also been held that whether expectation is legitimate is a question of fact which has to be determined in the larger public interest.

Circumstances for the formation of legitimate expectation.

It is important to keep in mind that the doctrine cannot be invoked on ambiguous, irrational, invalid, or unreasonable grounds while making an argument on such grounds. This doctrine may only be used when the administrative authority has made an explicit promise or when a standard practise has been followed.

A similar observation was made in the case of Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of Tamil Nadu

Additionally, this type of assumption must always be reasonable. The doctrine of legitimate expectation may be applied and such a person may have a reasonable claim of being treated in a specific way by an administrative authority where a person has no enforceable rights but is still affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority.

The Supreme Court ruled in M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P ((1997) 7 SCC 592)

that the doctrine of legitimate expectations operates in the field of public law and that, in appropriate circumstances, it is regarded as a substantive and enforceable right. According to the ruling, the industries had a legitimate expectation that the agreements would be renewed in line with past practise and the renewal clause.

In National Buildings Construction Corporation v S.Raghunathan ((1998) 7 SCC 66),

Respondents were sent on duty for an international project that NBCC (Government Company) planned to carry out in Iraq. The respondents made the decision to receive a salary on the same level as a Central P.W.D. employee, as well as a deputation allowance. Their basic pay was revised, but they were also given a foreign allowance at 125% of the basic pay. They argued that this allowance ought to be paid from the updated pay scale.

The allegation of legitimate expectations was denied by NBCC. The court agreed with the ruling that such promises and agreements were not carried out by NBCC. In explaining the doctrine, the Court noted that it has its roots in administrative law and that government agencies shouldn’t act arbitrarily or under the influence of abuse of discretion.

The above case suggests that the doctrine has both substantive and procedural components. This principle aims at fair play in the conduct of government authorities and is enforceable as a substantive right.

Conditions for a valid ‘Legitimate Expectation’.

A similar observation was made in the case of Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of Tamil Nadu

In the aforementioned case, it was decided that the claimant may raise this doctrine if a public authority has made an express promise or some other kind of representation, as long as the promise or representation is not vague, unclear, or ambiguous, or if there is an existing previous practise that the claimant can reasonably expect to be followed in his case as well. Additionally, this type of assumption must always be reasonable. The doctrine of legitimate expectation may be applied and such a person may have a reasonable claim of being treated in a specific way by an administrative authority where a person has no enforceable rights but is still affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority.

1. Express Promise

An express promise made on behalf of a public authority or the existence of a customary practise that the claimant can reasonably expect to continue can both give rise to legitimate or reasonable expectations. The legitimate expectation could be the result of an administrative authority’s expressly stated promise or assertion. It is crucial to make sure that such an express promise is valid and clear, without any ambiguity or uncertainty. According to the ruling given by the court in the Re Liverpool Taxi Owners Association. legitimate expectations can in fact result from an express promise made by a public body.

2. Established Practice

In the case of Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil Service

It was discovered that a legitimate expectation could result from an express declaration or promise as well as from the existence of a consistent or accepted practise. A claimant may anticipate that such a well-established procedure will also be applied to his case.

Types of Legitimate Expectations.

Primarily, there are two types of legitimate expectations.

1. Procedural Legitimate Expectation

Such legitimate expectations arise when an individual assumes that a governmental authority will follow a particular course of proceedings before making a decision. For instance, when a person expected an existing policy to be followed but it wasn’t,. when a person anticipated being subjected to one policy but was instead later subjected to another, or when a person anticipated receiving a hearing but wasn’t given one. A person who has a legitimate expectation must be given the chance to be heard.

2. Substantive Legitimate Expectation

When a person receives a specific benefit as a result of a promise made by a public authority, there is a substantive legitimate expectation. Despite this, it is thought that this kind of legitimate expectation might not have a solid foundation and might falter because of a primary public interest.

Article 14 and Legitimate Expectation.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is only applicable when the denial of a legitimate expectation results in a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s division bench in the case of The State of Jharkhand and others v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., comprised of Hon. Justices Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, issued this ruling.

As a result, “non-arbitrariness and unreasonableness” have been made the necessary qualifiers for determining whether or not there was a denial of a legitimate expectation. The doctrine’s application has essentially been integrated into Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the idea of a legitimate expectation in administrative law has now acquired enough significance. The doctrine of legitimate expectation protects not only individuals’ rights when facing administrative action, but also the fundamental principles of natural justice, which is the basis of all laws. When a public authority makes an explicit promise that a certain practise will continue on a regular basis, the claimant can reasonably expect that this practise will continue in his case also. As a result, it can be concluded that the idea of a legitimate expectation is to impose belief in citizen that, under certain circumstances he would continue to enjoy a certain set of benefits from which he shall not be deprived unless there is some overriding public interest.