Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectations

The doctrine of ‘Legitimate Expectation’ is one of numerous techniques used by the Court to assess administrative actions. This theory addresses the relationship between an individual and a public authority. According to this idea, public authorities can be held accountable in place of a ‘legitimate expectation’. The idea of legitimate expectation is critical to the development of judicial review law. The idea holds that a person may have a valid expectation of being treated in a particular way by an administrative body, even if he has no legal entitlement to such treatment under private law. Even if someone has no legal right, he may nonetheless have a reasonable expectation of gaining the benefit or privilege.

Such an expectation may come from a promise or the existence of a regular practice that the applicant might reasonably anticipate to continue and be followed in his case as well. If his expectations are not met, the Court or Tribunal may intervene to safeguard him by using concepts similar to natural justice and fair play in action. The idea that underpins justifiable expectation is founded in Article 14 of the Constitution and the law of fairness.

Origin

The idea of legitimate expectations originated in English law and has been adopted and amended in several jurisdictions, including India, Canada, Australia etc. The concept was initially defined in the landmark case of Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969), in which the court recognised that procedural rights could derive from the expectation of a fair hearing before an adverse decision.

What Do We Need To Know?

• Substantive and Procedural Expectations: Procedural expectations refer to the expectation of a fair process, such as the right to a hearing before making an adverse decision. Substantive expectations are the anticipation that a public authority will act in a specific manner, such as continuing to apply a particular policy or practice.
• Reasonableness: Expectations must be reasonable and legitimate. They cannot be founded on speculative hopes or unreasonable expectations. The legitimacy of the expectation is determined by the actions of the public authority and the situation in which the expectation was established.
• Reliance: Individuals must have relied on the public authority’s representations or actions to their damage. This reliance enhances the argument that the expectation is reasonable and should be protected.
• Fairness: Even if a person’s expectation is reasonable, it may not be protected if implementing it would be unjust or detrimental to the public interest.

Supreme Court also laid down the crucial features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The features are as follows: –

• legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation
• legitimate expectation must arise either from an express.

Challenges And Criticism

• Balance: One of the difficulties is striking a balance between individual aspirations and public Authorities may need to adjust rules to adapt to changing circumstances, and strict adherence to old methods might inhibit successful governance.
• Subjectivity: The reasonableness and legitimacy of expectations may be subjective, resulting in inconsistent judicial interpretations.
• Overreach: Critics claim that the theory can occasionally overreach, limiting public officials flexibility and discretion when making judgments for the greater good.

Landmark Judgements

1. M/s. B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd.. v/s Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri. & Ors. (2023)

The Supreme Court ruled in a landmark ruling that the public law domain recognises and upholds the substantive application of the legitimate expectations theory. The appellants lost their tax exemptions as a result of legislative changes that altered the meaning of “manufacture” under West Bengal sales tax regulations. The court emphasised that public authorities must take these expectations into account before making decisions that have an impact on them when they establish expectations through regular practices. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is enforceable and substantial in the public law arena, according to SC guidelines.

2. Dhrubamani Dey and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2023)

The Tripura High Court held that until the hiring process is complete, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be used. Candidates in this case requested the release of the results and appointment to the Superintendent position, but the court rejected their requests, ruling that no rightful expectation could be made until the hiring process was completed. Explanation of court: If the hiring process is not final, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be applied.

3. Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992) and Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India (1999)

To guarantee justice in administrative proceedings, the Indian judiciary has accepted and implemented the theory. Notable decisions where the Supreme Court stressed the need for justice and openness in government activities affecting individuals.

Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries

• Petitioner invited tender and the respondent was accepted as the highest bidder. However, the petitioner was not satisfied with the demand and asked for further negotiations during the period when the demand was still valid. During the meeting, the petitioner accepted a higher bid and the respondent refused to do so despite being given an opportunity to amend his bid.
• Therefore, the Appellant rejected the applicant’s demand. Satisfied with this, the respondent filed a petition in the Supreme Court claiming that the conduct of the petitioner was unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The matter came to the Supreme Court and held that there was no doubt that the petitioner had every right to reject any bid/tender but there had to be a good reason for doing so.
• The object of the competition is to obtain the highest price for a particular product by giving equal opportunity to all the bidders to compete. Therefore, inadequate price may be the main reason for further bargaining with the competitor to obtain higher price. In this case, we have agreed with all the competitors and obtained a higher price.
• In addition, the defendant (who had previously submitted the highest bid) had the opportunity to ask for a higher price than the agreed price after negotiations. However, the defendant did not accept the increase in price.
• The court found that the plaintiff had identified the defendant’s legitimate expectations and had not neglected to accept the maximum adjustment. The court held that the fact that the price was not sufficient within the specified time period and that the plaintiff was allowed to bid more and submit a higher than the offer showed that the defendant’s reasonable expectation was taken by the plaintiff, that his decisions were not discretionary and should not be influenced.

Conclusion

In administrative law, the legitimate expectations theory is a vital safety net that guarantees impartiality and consistency in the decisions made by public officials. Current case law highlights the doctrine’s importance and intricacy, illuminating its subtle applicability in diverse legal circumstances. The Supreme Court’s rulings emphasise that legitimate expectations can be both substantive and procedural, protecting individuals from abrupt and unfair changes in government policies.

The legitimate expectations theory protects people from arbitrary changes in public authorities policies or practices and acts as a crucial check on the use of administrative power. By guaranteeing that public officials uphold their actions and representations, it exemplifies a dedication to good governance and promotes accountability and trust in public administration. Its implementation, therefore, necessitates striking a careful balance between upholding individual liberties and serving the larger public interest.