DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

This article is written by Mannat Kapoor of 2^nd Semester of Asian Law College, Noida, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

A cornerstone of administrative law that guarantees consistency and justice in public decision-making is the theory of legitimate expectations. It safeguards people and communities who justifiably believe that they would be handled in a particular way as a result of long-standing policies or assurances from the government. Because it strikes a balance between the need for administrative flexibility and the requirement to uphold established expectations, this philosophy is essential for preserving administrative accountability, transparency, and confidence. This doctrine’s foundations are in the ideas of natural justice and fairness, and it has developed as a result of important court decisions made across numerous jurisdictions.

This essay looks at the doctrine’s legal foundation, how it applies to various legal systems, and how it could affect executive decision-making in real-world situations. It also responds to critiques leveled at the theory, such as worries that it could obstruct administrative flexibility and strike a balance between public interest and individual expectations. Lastly, the study suggests changes to improve the efficacy of the concept, including knowledge from contemporary administrative law trends and comparative viewpoints.

KEYWORDS

Legitimate Expectations, Administrative Flexibility, Transparency, Jurisdictions, Contemporary Administrative Law Trends.

INTRODUCTION

This doctrine in India is well based on Article 14[1] of the Constitution. This constitutional mandate imposes a duty on the public authority to act fairly and which abhors arbitrariness in administrative dealing. This doctrine was first used in Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Assn. According to administrative law, people’s expectations based on how public authorities behave are protected under the notion of legitimate expectations. It happens when a someone or group reasonably expects that they will be treated in a particular way as a result of a government action or policy. In order to promote justice and consistency in their dealings with the public, this ideology makes sure that administrative organizations keep their word or follow established procedures. In other words, unless there is an extremely strong reason to do otherwise, it is expected that an authority that has persuaded others that a particular result will occur will honor that expectation. Relevance to Administrative Law, Since it strikes a balance between the demands of administrative flexibility and decision-making fairness and predictability, the notion of legitimate expectations is essential to administrative law. It makes sure that decisions are made consistently and transparently by acting as a check on the arbitrary use of authority by public officials. This idea supports accountability and trust in governmental operations by shielding people and organizations from abrupt and unfair policy changes that could have a negative impact on them. Origins and Development of the Doctrine, The natural justice and fairness theories, which have long been a component of administrative law, are the foundation of the theory of legitimate expectations. As judicial review gained more traction in the middle of the 20th century, it was formally recognized. The idea developed as a result of several significant court rulings that established the right to specific protections for those who had relied on statements made by public officials or on their established practices. Principles of Administrative Law and Common Law Influences, Numerous common law and administrative law elements are included into the doctrine of legitimate expectations. Fairness and the defense of people’s rights against capricious government actions are important aspects of common law traditions. This doctrine’s evolution has also been affected by administrative law ideas, specifically those pertaining to procedural fairness and due process. A larger commitment to ensuring that administrative judgments are just and reasonable in addition to being lawful is shown in the integration of these criteria into the notion of legitimate expectations. This combination emphasizes how the theory helps to advance accountability and openness in administrative procedures.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Legal Basis of the Doctrine

1. Judicial Interpretations and Case Law: Different judicial interpretations and case law from different countries have influenced and improved the notion of legitimate expectations. The concept was notably developed in the UK through cases like Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case), in which the House of Lords acknowledged that an established practice of a public authority could give rise to a legitimate expectation that it would not be altered without sufficient reason. Additional noteworthy cases include ex parte Mustafa and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, which upheld the idea that a rightful expectation could originate from both explicit commitments and customary practices. The European Court of Justice (CJEU) recognized that reasonable expectations could result from the consistent application of administrative practices or promises in cases such as C-213/99, R v. Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Association of British Travel Agents. These cases are examples of how the doctrine has been applied in the EU. The concept has been refined by the CJEU to incorporate the essential tenet of legal certainty found in EU law. The “due process” section of the Constitution and the concept of “estoppel” are two linked ideas that deal with similar issues of fairness and expectation, even if the doctrine of legitimate expectations is not technically recognized in the United States. Requirements to maintain reasonable expectations produced by governmental actions or pledges are recognized in cases like Goldberg v. Kelly and Board of Regents v. Roth.

2. The Significance of Reasonability and Equity in Administrative Proceedings, The fairness concept lies at the heart of the justified expectations doctrine. In order to protect people from arbitrary policy changes that go against their reasonable expectations, this concept requires administrative acts to be carried out in a just and equitable manner. This is enhanced by the reasonableness requirement, which stipulates that any deviation from customary procedures or commitments must be supported by reasonable and justifiable arguments. In general, courts evaluate whether a policy or practice change is compatible with the expectations that were established and if the interests of the parties impacted were sufficiently taken into account during the decision-making process.

B. Comparative Perspectives

1. The Doctrine in Different Jurisdictions:-

• UK: Thanks to a number of significant judgments, the theory has become well-established in the UK and has been included into judicial review guidelines. The safeguarding of reasonable expectations established by public bodies, as well as procedural justice, are both valued by UK courts. Application of the doctrine guarantees that any notable deviation from standard procedure is made with sufficient notification and rationale.
• European Union: In the framework of administrative law, the theory of legitimate expectations is accepted inside the EU. The CJEU has created a nuanced strategy that strikes a balance between the requirement for administrative flexibility and the preservation of individual expectations. In matters concerning administrative judgments and regulatory measures, the doctrine of legitimate expectations is employed to protect the principle of legal certainty, which is fundamental to EU jurisprudence.
• United States: Although there isn’t a legally recognized theory of legitimate expectations in the US like there is in the UK or EU, there are concepts that are similar that are included in administrative law and constitutional law. Comparable Ideas in Civil Law Systems

2. Similar ideas to the legitimate expectations theory can be found in civil law states under the administrative fairness and protection of legal certainty principles. To guarantee that people are not harmed by modifications to administrative procedures or regulations they properly counted upon, for example, the French idea of “la protection de la confiance légitime[2]“expresses a similar concern. Comparably, administrative law in Germany is built on the idea of “Vertrauensschutz,” or the safeguarding of trust, which attempts to shield people from unjustly having their expectations unfairly dashed by the actions of the government. These guidelines highlight a legal challenge that is shared by many legal systems: maintaining administrative activities’ fairness and predictability. Issues are addressed by the principles of equitable estoppel and due process, which guarantee that people receive fair notice of decisions made against them and that government actions do not unjustly upset established expectations.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

A. Effect on Executive Decision-Making: Influence on Procedures and Methods

The legitimate expectations theory ensures that modifications to established policies or procedures are properly justified and communicated, which has an impact on administrative decision-making. It encourages:

• Maintaining consistent processes is crucial for administrators to prevent any erosion of public trust. If a public body has traditionally provided a particular benefit, for instance, abrupt changes made without sufficient explanation may be contested.
• Due Process: Any changes that impact people or companies must be disclosed with enough time to enable for reasonable response or adaptation. This promotes more deliberate and open decision-making.
• Fairness and Accountability: To improve accountability and avoid making arbitrary judgments, administrators must explain why they deviate from set procedures.

CASE STUDIES

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service[3]:-

Facts:

Margaret Thatcher, citing national security, issued a directive prohibiting GCHQ staff members from becoming members of trade unions. This ruling, which was made in accordance with the royal prerogative, is being contested in court by the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU).

Issues:

• Justiciability: Could the courts examine the ruling issued with the exercise of the prerogative power?
• The decision’s legality: Was it legal to prevent GCHQ workers from becoming union members?

Held:

• Justiciability: The ruling qualified as justiciable, which allowed for judicial review.
• Result: The appeal was denied because the decision was judged appropriate in light of the national security considerations.

The Opinion of Lord Diplock:-

Justiciability: When prerogative powers impact private law-enforceable rights or responsibilities or deprive people of benefits they anticipated, they are vulnerable to judicial review.

Judicial Review Grounds: Prerogative powers are subject to the three grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

Improper Procedure: Despite the workers’ rightful expectation of union participation, the absence of engagement was warranted by national security reasons.

Judgment of Lord Roskill:-

Justiciability of Some Prerogative Powers: Certain prerogative powers can be legally challenged. Judicial review usually does not apply to powers pertaining to treaties, national security, and certain other areas.

Actual Case: In this instance, the prerogative authority did not fit inside any of the categories that were eliminated.

Analysis:-

Judicial Review Prospect: Though theoretically feasible, successful challenges to prerogative powers are uncommon because of their specifics and the domains they address, which frequently involve national security.

Future Things to Think About: Although it was not required in this instance, Lord Diplock foresaw future discussions about introducing proportionality into common law judicial review.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly[4]:-

Facts: In accordance with a policy announced by the Home Secretary, inmates must be taken out of their cells during regular searches, which includes looking through legal letters that may contain illicit material.

Through judicial review, Daly contested this policy, claiming it violated his common law right to the privacy of privileged legal correspondence.

House of Lords held: After determining that the policy violated Daly’s common law right, the House of Lords granted his appeal.

The Opinion of Lord Bingham:-

Common Law Right: The policy may be acceptable if it was required to uphold jail security, order, and deter criminality.

Convention and Proportionality: Lord Bingham pointed out that although the outcome in this case was the same under the common law and the Convention, domestic courts are required by the Human Rights Act (HRA) to personally evaluate any violations of rights under the Convention. He agreed that other instances might yield different outcomes, citing Smith and Grady v. UK as an example.

The Opinion of Lord Steyn:-

Comparing Proportionality and Rationality: According to Lord Steyn, proportionality review is more thorough than the conventional Wednesbury rationality review. He outlined a number of significant variations:

In contrast to merely determining if a decision falls within a reasonable range, a proportionality review evaluates whether the decision-maker struck an adequate balance.

It entails giving various interests and factors a more thorough analysis of their relative weight.

Propriety may result in distinct outcomes in some circumstances, even if many cases may give the same conclusions under both standards.

The context-dependent nature of proportionality evaluation, he said, sets it apart from merits review.

Analysis:-

• Lord Bingham’s Approach: Placed emphasis on safeguarding human rights by applying a proportionality-style balancing test.
• Lord Steyn’s Analysis: A little contentious and at odds with later decisions (Kennedy and Pham), where weight and balance issues are taken into account for both proportionality and reasonableness evaluations.
• Balancing Test: In Daly, Lord Bingham’s method of evaluating rights violations included balancing interests, which is similar to proportionality. This suggests that balancing exercises were applied even in common law.

B. Views from Stakeholders

Opinions of Those Affected:

• Public officials are required to provide justification for policy modifications and to discuss them openly. This guarantees justice and fosters trust even though it adds more formalities.
• Enterprises: The concept safeguards against sudden policy modifications that can affect operations and investments. It offers stability, which is necessary for long-term planning.
• persons: By mandating that modifications to public policies be reasonable and well-communicated, it protects persons from unjust treatment and upholds their rights and expectations.

Effects on Administrative Transparency and Public Trust

1. Public Confidence: By guaranteeing that choices are not made arbitrarily, the theory of reasonable expectations promotes public confidence in administrative procedures. People and companies are more likely to trust the government and the legal system when they see that reforms are implemented in an open and reasonable manner.

2. Administrative Transparency: In order to respect the doctrine, administrative entities have to be open and honest about the reasons behind any changes to their policies. This openness is essential to preserving public trust and making sure that all parties involved are aware of the standards and procedures that apply to them. It lessens the possibility that injustice or corruption may be perceived, which improves the legitimacy of public institutions.

CRITICISM

a. Administrative Flexibility and the Doctrine’s Effect: The theory of legitimate expectations is frequently criticized for having the ability to impede administrative decision-making. Opponents claim the theory could unnecessarily restrict the freedom of administrative bodies by establishing a legal expectation that public authorities will operate in a particular way based on prior commitments or established practices. In response to evolving facts, shifting public priorities, or changing conditions, public authorities frequently need to be able to modify their policies and choices. However, the doctrine may limit this freedom by enforcing legal restrictions on decision-making processes and mandating the fulfillment of previous agreements even in situations where doing so may be in the public interest. The problem of maintaining consistency while allowing for essential alterations is noteworthy, as some contend that the inflexibility of the concept may impede efficient governance and adaptable administration.

b. Balance Between Public Interest and Expectations: When it comes to striking a balance between personal expectations and more general public policy considerations, the doctrine of legitimate expectations presents difficult questions. The theory seeks to shield those who have legitimately depended on particular assurances or established procedures, but there is a conflict between upholding these expectations and serving the larger public interest. For example, new facts or shifting societal demands may require the revision or abandonment of a policy that benefits a particular group. Achieving equilibrium[5] between upholding personal expectations and guaranteeing that public policies consistently reflect present and future public interests is a challenging and frequently disputed undertaking. The theory’s detractors contend that it occasionally favors individual claims over group needs, which could have unfavorable effects on the community as a whole.

c. Potential for Abuse: Misuse of the legitimate expectations theory is a serious risk as well. Sometimes the doctrine is applied too broadly or incorrectly, which can create problems with how it is applied. Parties might, for instance, try to use the concept to challenge rulings in situations where there was either no meaningful expectation of continuity or an improperly developed expectation. Public authorities may frequently face unjustified legal challenges as a result of such usage, which can foster a litigation atmosphere. Furthermore, the concept could be used to gain unfair advantages or oppose ethically and legally sound policy changes. Preserving the integrity and efficacy of the concept requires that it be implemented judiciously[6] and honestly, free from any form of manipulation.

REFORM PROPOSALS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

It is important to address several important topics while reforming the legitimate expectations theory. Initially, efforts are being made to define common standards that will preserve and recognize reasonable expectations while giving public authorities specific instructions on how to prevent setting unreasonable expectations. Increased transparency in the decision-making processes to record and support policy changes, as well as mandated notification and engagement prior to policy changes, are recommended as additional procedural safeguards.

Furthermore, taking into account the historical background of these expectations in the reform process, a balancing test is proposed to balance the public interest against the influence on established expectations. Another suggested reform is to increase the scope of court review procedures. This would entail developing standardized remedies and extending the grounds for review in order to guarantee uniform results when expectations are not met.

Valuable perspectives are provided by comparative insights from different jurisdictions. The UK’s strategy proposes a systematic evaluation framework and stresses both the procedural and substantive components of reasonable expectations. Safeguards against weakening expectations could be informed by the European Union’s focus on stability and justice. Australia serves as an example for procedural safeguards because of its connection between administrative fairness and transparency and justifiable expectations. Effective management of conflicting interests can be learned from Canada’s approach of striking a balance between private expectations and government flexibility.

A number of tendencies are becoming apparent as we look to the future. Transparency and accountability in automated decision-making are concerns that must be addressed in order to integrate digital governance. The doctrine’s alignment with human rights principles—which prioritize equity and equality—is gaining traction. It is expected that flexible legal frameworks that can quickly adjust to new situations and shifts in policy will be developed. Better stakeholder engagement procedures are anticipated to better manage and align expectations with changing public policies, while globalization[7] brings with it the necessity to take into account cross-border effects and international rules.

CONCLUSION

A cornerstone of administrative law, the theory of legitimate expectations is essential to maintaining equity and uniformity in the actions of public bodies. It guards against arbitrary changes and promotes trust in administrative procedures by requiring that established practices and promises be upheld unless there are strong reasons to do otherwise. The concept has drawbacks even if it encourages transparency and accountability. The possibility of abuse and its ability to limit administrative flexibility raise concerns, which emphasize the need for cautious implementation and reform. Reforms that are being suggested include improving procedural transparency, establishing more precise guidelines for identifying expectations, and better balancing the rights of the public and individual citizens.

Human rights and digital governance are two contemporary issues that should be integrated into administrative law as it develops. The theory will continue to be effective in advancing justice and adjusting to modern legal and social situations with the support of these modifications.

REFERENCES

1. He, Y., 2023. R (Daly) v Home Secretary [2001] UKHL 26; [2001] 2 AC 532. lawprof.co. Available at: https://lawprof.co/public-law/irrationality-review-cases/r-daly-v-home-secretary-2001-ukhl-26-2001-2-ac-532/ [Accessed 3 August 2024].
2. Team, L., 2023b. CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374. lawprof.co. Available at: https://lawprof.co/public-law/separation-of-powers-cases/ccsu-v-minister-for-the-civil-service-1984-ukhl-9-1985-1-ac-374/ [Accessed 3 August 2024].
3. Patel, F. R. & Patel, R., 2021. The doctrine of legitimate expectation: from development in England to Indian scenario. In: ILI Law Review Winter Issue, pp. 138–140. Available at: https://ili.ac.in/pdf/win21_8.pdf [Accessed 3 August 2024].
4. Maheshwari, S., 2023. Doctrine of legitimate expectation. ipleaders. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/legitimate-expectaion/ [Accessed 3 August 2024].
5. Taxmann 2022, ‘Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Meaning, Concept & its Application’, Taxmann Blog, 20 December. Available at: https://www.taxmann.com/post/blog/opinion-doctrine-of-legitimate-expectation-meaning-concept-its-application [Accessed: 3 August 2024].
6. Notes, L. 2023, ‘Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations under Administrative Law’, LAW Notes, 31 December. Available at: https://lawnotes.co/doctrine-of-legitimate-expectations-under-administrative-law/ [Accessed: 3 August 2024].
7. Batra, N. 2020, ‘Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation’, Constitutional & Administrative Law – Government, Public Sector – India, 10 January. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/constitutional-administrative-law/881956/doctrine-of-legitimate-expectation [Accessed: 3 August 2024].
8. Kumar, V. (n.d.) ‘Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Critical Analysis’. Available at: http://www.dehradunlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/10-Doctrine-of-legitimate-expectation-Critical-Analysis.pdf [Accessed: 3 August 2024].

---

[1] Indian Kanoon. Indian Kanoon Document. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/ [Accessed: 5 August 2024].

[2]Actu Juridique. Available at: https://www.actu-juridique.fr/administratif/le-principe-de-confiance-legitime-serait-il-entre-en-droit-public-interne/ (Accessed: 5 August 2024).

[3] CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL). 

[4] R (Daly) v Home Secretary [2001] UKHL 26; [2001] 2 AC 532.

[5] Dictionary.com Equilibrium. Available at: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equilibrium [Accessed: 5 August 2024].

[6]Merriam-Webster  Judicious. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judicious (Accessed: 5 August 2024).

[7]National Geographic Society. Globalization. Available at: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/globalization/ [Accessed: 5 August 2024].

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.