This article has been written by Reet Babbar, a second year student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.

Concept of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations

Legitimate expectations, basically, are expectations that are justified and directed toward a certain outcome from something or from someone. This doctrine has not been codified by any legislation, but has instead been developed by our nation’s courts through numerous judgments. It primarily becomes relevant when a matter concerning government or public authority involves a person who enters into an agreement with the government or having faith in something that has been promised by public authorities to uphold that and not repudiate it subsequently on. An affirmative commitment or a long-standing pattern of behavior that the claimant may realistically assume to resume may give rise to this type of expectations. If somehow the administration fails to live up to those legitimate requirements, the person may then approach the court under this principle. The court stated that if you build certain hopes in the eyes of the public, then you’re obligated to execute that task and you’ll be expected to live by those standards. 

This doctrine was formed to restrain the capricious use of power by government authority since there was a rise in the number of authorities that pledged to carry out specific measures in the interest of the greater public but afterwards failed to comply with them. When an individual seems to have an expectation or benefit in a government institution upholding a long-standing exercise or honoring a commitment, the idea of a legitimate expectation is employed by the judiciary for judicial review and it integrates the principles of fairness and reasonableness to the circumstance. The significance of this doctrine to ensure that even ordinary citizens could initiate a complaint against the administration and urge the court to compel the government to uphold its commitments. 

Relation with Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 14 lays down the provision of Equality before Law and states that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.” Since Article 14 of the Indian Constitution forbids the government from acting arbitrarily in any capacity and only permits it to concentrate on the fundamental foundation of equality, the idea of legitimate expectations is intimately related to that provision. 

According to this doctrine, the public authorities may be held accountable on the basis of a legitimate expectation that is legally relevant and rational for a particular reason. 

For instance, if the government formulates a scheme and notifies the general public that it intends to setup electric poles in the rural communities of a particular region, but after a certain time the authorities refuses to do so and ultimately exempts a few villages from the plan while providing only an a small number of remaining villages with this facility, then the government fails to uphold the legitimate expectations of those villages’ residents, and the court may compel them to complete the duty they first committed to since the exclusion of these villages was not based on just or reasonable grounds. 

The doctrine does not necessarily force the government to carry out a specific act that it has previously intended to carry out regardless of any circumstances; rather, it allows the government or public authority to withhold from carrying out that act on any legitimate basis. The principle only prevails where there are no such justifiable or rational grounds for the government to reject such facility. 

Legitimate Expectation & Natural Justice

The concept “Audi alteram partem,” which implies to hear the opposing side or that everyone should be heard, constitutes one of the principles of natural justice. In the framework of natural justice also, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been implemented. The judiciary has increasingly expanded this idea in principles of natural justice, particularly, that an obligation to consult may originate from a reasonable expectation, based either on a commitment by the administrative authority to discuss the issue with the aggrieved individuals or on an established pattern of deliberations with the people who are affected with the commitments. When the administration negatively impacts someone by a governmental direction, the individual may request a hearing on the grounds of “legitimate expectation.” 

Judicial Recognition

The Indian judiciary has recently begun to take notice of this same emerging field of law known as Legitimate Expectation. In the landmark case of Navjyoti Coo-Group Housing v. Union of India & Ors, the Supreme Court emphasized a connection between the aggrieved party’s right to be heard and right to representation when their expectations have not been met. It was noted that the government didn’t have to undermine people’s “reasonable expectations” if there was no compelling public policy justification for doing so. In a situation where an individual has a legitimate expectation, and if the government intends to violate that person’s expectation, it shall provide that individual with an opportunity to present claims in front of the court and that right can’t be taken away.

In the case of State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai, the government initially gave the respondent permission to run a new school but afterwards revoked that permission by acting under a new order. The Supreme Court concluded that the second order was arbitrary since the license could not be withdrawn without abiding by the principles of natural justice, and the approval at first had given the respondents a legitimate expectation.

Another case pertaining to this doctrine is Madras City Wine Merchants’ Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, in which the Tamil Nadu Liquor Prohibition Act of 1937 established two sets of regulations. They both implemented licensing programs. Only those who already possessed a license under the first rule were eligible for the latter license. The 1992 Bar Rules were repealed in 1993. The issue as to whether bar license holders had a genuine expectation that their licenses would indeed be reissued after a year emerged. The Supreme Court decided not to use the doctrine of legitimate expectation, pointing the fact that the option to not renew these licenses had been made far earlier than the deadline for completing the process. In the interests of the general public, the bar order had to be repealed.

State of Karnataka v. Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association included the authorities releasing a statement listing certain places where sum cleanup was to be conducted. The government then published a new notice with the updated list. Many places that were on the initial list were not included in the subsequent notice. It was contested on the grounds that inhabitants of the places removed from the second list were not given the opportunity to voice their views. The court upheld this argument on the grounds that such an earlier commitment would have given rise to reasonable expectations.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is quite clear that a legitimate expectation is one that has some justification that is fair and that it comprises expectations that are outside the scope of any legally enforceable privilege. However, expectancy and anticipation are not interchangeable element in legal terms. It is distinct from a want, longing, or hope, and it cannot be construed as a demand or claim based on a legal claim. A sincere want cannot develop into a reasonable expectation. Only when an expectation is supported by the lawful, normative, or naturally occurring execution of a set method can its legitimacy be deduced.

References

• Administrative Law, Halsbury’s LAWS OF INDIA, LexisNexis Publication.
• Indian Constitutional Law, M.P. Jain, 6^th Edition (2011), LexisNexis Publication.
• Administrative Law, G.M. Wagh, 2003 Edition.
• Principles of Administrative Law, M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, LexisNexis Publication.
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/346691/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/813925/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141187345/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/legitimate-expectaion/
• https://ijtr.nic.in/articles/art13.pdf

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening