INTRODUCTION
In this Article we will endeavour to understand the Doctrine of Legitimate Public Expectation, as understood in Public Administrative Law. This Doctrine acts as a bulwark against the excesses of the State and can also be used as a sword to cut through bureaucratic hurdles, and hold the State accountable. The essence of this Doctrine is that it the State and subordinate bodies to it are to act in consonance with express promises made by them or keeping their consistent actions in mind. In this article the author traces the evolution of this Doctrine from its origins in England and to its eventual acceptance in India. The genesis of this Doctrine lies in the requirement of fairness, which is a cornerstone of good governance as well. Wade says, “that the Doctrine has been developed as a cornerstone of reasonability and natural justice”.
ORIGINS IN ENGLAND- The Doctrine has evolved from English Law, although its basic philosophy emanates from Judeo-Christian morality, as well as ancient Hindu texts prescribing Dharma as conduct by the King and his Council while administering the wheels of justice, dharma as well as traditional notions of morality mandating strict observation of a rule’s-based order.
Even though the term of Legitimate Expectation was coined by Lord Denning, the origins of this Doctrine can be traced to the celebrated ruling of Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd vs Wednesbury Co , wherein permission to screen movies in the picture hall was granted from Monday to Saturday. It was held that a decision would be said to be unreasonable,
if the following conditions were met: –
- Whether factors which ought not to have been considered, were given due weightage to.
- Whether the Defendant failed to take the factors into account that should have been considered.
- Whether the decision was so irrational that it should never have been considered by any rational authority.
Reasonability is the pillar on which the Doctrine of Legitimate Public Expectation is based, in fact it can be said to be the gerund norm of the said Doctrine. The term “Legitimate Expectation” was first used by Lord Denning in the case of Schimidt vs Secretary of Home Affairs . The said case concerned 2 American students who had travelled to the United Kingdom for academic purposes, when their Visas expired the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom refused to give them an opportunity to extend their visas, the Court of Appeal also did not allow them to make a representation against the said order, however the House of Lords through Lord Denning held that there was a “ Legitimate Expectation” that they would be afforded a hearing before they were deported.
Another celebrated decision based on this Doctrine is the case of R vs Liverpool Taxi owners Associatio n, in this case the Council pursued a policy of limiting the licensed taxis to 300. The applicants were repeatedly assured that there would be no departure from this undertaking, however they did so. The House of Lords in England held that the Council could not depart from the express undertaking given, except when it was in public interest to do so.
From a conspectus of the above cases, the Court’s in England have held fairness in administration to be a vital cornerstone of justice, a public or a quasi-public body is required to consider the past policy and to consider representation made by the people, who are sought to be affected by the said change in policy. However, the rule is not iron clad and there can be a departure from this, if in compelling public interest.
THE SCENARIO IN INDIA- In India this Doctrine has grown exponentially, primarily due to the proactiveness of the Supreme Court of India, which has played a major role in the growth of this Doctrine. In India this Doctrine is to be seen in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits arbitrariness in policy making and other actions of the State.
This Doctrine was first invoked in the case of Scheduled Castes and Weaker Section Welfare Association . In this case a notification was issued vis a vis the slum areas, however later a new notification was issued wherein areas previously included were left out. The Supreme Court said that the legitimate expectation of the people living in the areas previously included had been raised, and therefore they must be included, and the State was bound to honour its commitments made.
The next case which dealt with this Doctrine was the case of Food Corporation of India vs M/S Kamdhenu Cattle feed industries . In this case the FCI invited bids for sale of stock of damaged food grains. The Respondent’s bid was highest of all; however, he had not raised his bid during the negotiating process. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the correctness of the bid, the Supreme Court did not change the outcome of the bidding process, however the following observations were made-“The State is required to act fairly in contractual spheres, and they have to conform to Article 14, of which non-arbitrariness is an important facet”.
One of the most landmark case-Laws of this Doctrine is the celebrated case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court of India held that the Government would be bound its commitment to exempt new industrial units in the State from the payment of sales tax when the affected party, by relying on its representation has already set up an industrial unit in the said State.
In the recent case of State of Jharkhand vs Brahmaputra Metallics Pvt Ltd the Supreme Court of India held that when the State had promised to grant an exemption to newly industrial units in the State of Jharkhand for 50% reduction in electricity for five years, and the Respondent by relying on the said representation had set up an industrial unit, would be held accountable for the same as a legitimate expectation had arisen in favour of the said Respondent.
An analysis of these decisions makes it clear that this Doctrine has become an integral part of Indian jurisprudence, and is also being used to keep the arbitrariness, and high-handedness of the State in check. In the next paragraphs we will examine through illustrative case Law when the Court’s declines to make use of this Doctrine.
In the case of Punjab Communications vs Union of India , it was held by the Supreme Court that when the need to formulate public policy was so high, substantive legitimate expectation can be side-lined. The Court will only interfere with public policy if irrational or perverse.
In the case of Indian Aluminium Company vs Karnataka Electricity Board concessional rated for the supply of electricity had been entered between the company, the electricity board, and the State. Later, the agreement was superseded by the Act of the State Legislature. The company opposed the rise in electricity prices, however the Supreme Court refused to use this Doctrine, arguing that there is no scope for implementation of this Doctrine in the contractual sphere.
CONCLUSION- It is lucid that the Doctrine of Legitimate expectation is premised on the need for fairness in administrative decision making, the mainstay of this Doctrine is premised on the need for public bodies to act fairly, and without caprice. This Doctrine is also envisaged as an essential cornerstone of the Rule of Law, as it introduces facets of stability between the interactions between the Government and the governed. Charles Dickens in his Magnum Opus has also remarked that there is nothing more rankling than unfairness, and this Doctrine is essentially a recognition of this principle for in a democratic setup like ours, there cannot be an iota of unfairness, and this Doctrine is essentially a strikethrough against this, it is a true celebration of the democratic spirit which permeates the spirit of this nation.
Contribute by: Amit Sanduja and Advait Ghosh, Advocates, Delhi High Court
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us and Call us