An Analysis on "Legitimate Expecatation as a Ground for Judicial Review"
Legitimate Expectation as a Ground for Judicial Review
1. What is Legitimate Expectation?
Legitimate expectation arises when a public authority has made a promise, assurance, or established a consistent practice that leads an individual or group to expect a certain treatment or procedural fairness.
It protects people from arbitrary change or unfairness by public authorities.
It is not a personal right but a public law right enforceable through judicial review.
Can be procedural (expectation of fair hearing) or substantive (expectation of benefit or policy continuation).
2. Legal Basis
Rooted in the principle of fairness.
Recognized as a part of natural justice.
Courts intervene to prevent abuse of power when public bodies break promises or depart from established practices without fair reasons.
3. Elements of Legitimate Expectation
A clear, unambiguous promise or established practice by a public authority.
The claimant has relied on the promise or practice.
It would be unfair or an abuse of power to renege on the promise without giving notice or opportunity to be heard.
4. Important Case Laws and Their Analysis
🔹 Case 1: R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (1999) 2 AC 922 (UK)
Facts:
A disabled woman was promised a "home for life" in a care facility, but the health authority planned to close it.
Held:
The House of Lords ruled that this promise created a substantive legitimate expectation.
The authority could not frustrate this expectation without overriding public interest.
The promise was binding unless a proportionate and fair reason justified withdrawal.
Significance:
This case is the leading authority on substantive legitimate expectation.
It established that public authorities must honor clear promises.
🔹 Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without a hearing.
Held:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of natural justice, implying a procedural legitimate expectation to be heard before adverse action.
Significance:
Although the case deals with Article 21, it highlights the procedural aspect of legitimate expectation.
Administrative actions must be fair and provide hearing.
🔹 Case 3: Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation AIR 1993 SC 1096
Facts:
The Corporation stopped a previously practiced grant to employees.
Held:
Supreme Court recognized that a regular, consistent practice can create legitimate expectation.
The Court held that departure from established practice must be accompanied by reasonable explanation.
Significance:
Emphasizes that past consistent behavior can ground legitimate expectation.
Authorities must justify changes to avoid arbitrariness.
🔹 Case 4: Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977) 1 WLR 1447 (UK)
Facts:
Education Secretary reversed a local council’s school policy without consulting it.
Held:
Courts held that the authority had a procedural legitimate expectation to be consulted.
Administrative decisions must respect prior commitments to consult affected parties.
Significance:
Established procedural fairness as a basis for legitimate expectation.
Courts protect procedural rights to ensure fair decision-making.
🔹 Case 5: State of Punjab v. Amar Singh AIR 1968 SC 777
Facts:
A government servant was denied promised promotion and benefits without explanation.
Held:
Supreme Court held that when a promise is made by the government, it creates a legitimate expectation.
Failure to fulfill it without valid reason is unfair and can be challenged.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle in Indian context.
Affirmed legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review.
5. Summary of Principles from Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive Legitimate Expectation | Expectation of a benefit or status based on a promise. | Coughlan (1999) |
| Procedural Legitimate Expectation | Expectation of a fair hearing or consultation. | Tameside (1977), Maneka Gandhi (1978) |
| Based on Consistent Practice | Established practices can create expectations. | Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) |
| Public Authority Bound by Promise | Authorities cannot renege on clear promises unfairly. | Amar Singh (1968) |
| Fairness and Proportionality | Any departure must be fair, proportionate, and justified. | Coughlan (1999) |
6. Critical Analysis
The doctrine strikes a balance between administrative flexibility and fairness.
Protects individuals’ reliance interests against arbitrary government action.
But courts also weigh public interest and resource constraints.
Legitimate expectation has expanded judicial scrutiny in administrative decisions.
However, not all expectations are protected—they must be legitimate, clear, and reasonable.
7. Conclusion
Legitimate expectation is a powerful tool in administrative law to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency in public administration. It acts as a check against arbitrariness by compelling authorities to honor their promises or provide fair procedures before changing policies.
The doctrine encompasses both procedural and substantive rights and is backed by a rich body of case law that balances individual rights and public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments