Doctrine of legitimate expectation
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
Meaning of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle in administrative law that protects an individual’s or group’s expectation that a public authority will act in a certain way based on:
A promise or representation (explicit or implicit) made by the authority, or
A consistent past practice followed by the authority.
It requires the administrative authority to honour its promise or practice unless there is an overriding public interest to change.
If the authority intends to depart from the expectation, it must:
Give adequate notice,
Provide a fair opportunity to be heard, or
Follow procedural fairness.
The doctrine is based on fairness and good administration and aims to prevent abrupt or arbitrary changes in policy or practice that adversely affect individuals.
Scope and Application
Applies mainly when a public authority makes promises, assurances, or established practices that lead people to expect certain treatment.
Can give rise to:
A procedural legitimate expectation: right to a fair hearing before a change.
A substantive legitimate expectation: right to the benefit or outcome promised.
The doctrine is a way to hold public authorities accountable and ensures fairness in administrative actions.
Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ case) — UK Supreme Court
Facts: Government withdrew trade union rights for GCHQ workers without consulting them, despite an established practice of consultation.
Issue: Whether workers had a legitimate expectation of consultation.
Holding: The court recognized legitimate expectation could arise from consistent past practice or an express promise.
Significance: Established the modern doctrine of legitimate expectation in UK law.
Principle: Legitimate expectation requires fairness; authorities may depart but must give notice and reasons or compensate.
2. R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan (1999) — UK
Facts: Ms. Coughlan was promised a “home for life” in a care facility; later, the authority decided to close it.
Issue: Whether she had a substantive legitimate expectation to remain.
Holding: Court ruled in favor of Coughlan; the promise was clear and unequivocal, creating a substantive right.
Significance: Confirmed that legitimate expectation can give rise to substantive rights, not just procedural fairness.
Principle: Public authorities must keep clear promises or have overriding public interest.
3. Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation Ltd. (1993) (India)
Facts: The government promised the corporation certain benefits; later, these were withdrawn.
Issue: Whether the corporation had a legitimate expectation based on the government’s representation.
Holding: Supreme Court of India held that where there is an assurance on which a party relies, that party may claim legitimate expectation.
Significance: Indian courts accepted the doctrine and emphasized protection against arbitrary administrative action.
Principle: The doctrine applies when the promise induces action or forbearance.
4. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) (India)
Facts: Punjab government had a policy of pension benefits for certain employees. The policy was changed affecting the petitioner.
Issue: Whether the petitioner could claim a legitimate expectation based on the prior policy.
Holding: Court held that legitimate expectation arises from a consistent administrative practice or promise, but may be overridden by statute or policy change with reasonable notice.
Significance: Balances fairness to individuals with government’s right to change policies.
Principle: Legitimate expectation is subject to public interest considerations.
5. R. (Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2008) — UK
Facts: Chagos Islanders claimed a legitimate expectation to return to their homeland based on government assurances.
Issue: Whether the government’s prior representations created a legitimate expectation.
Holding: The House of Lords held that the government had frustrated legitimate expectations and ruled against arbitrary decisions.
Significance: Demonstrated the doctrine’s role in human rights and public law cases.
Principle: Legitimate expectation protects individuals against abrupt policy changes that affect fundamental rights.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Holding & Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) | UK | Legitimate expectation from practice/promise | Recognized doctrine; requires fairness & consultation |
| R. v. North and East Devon HA, ex p Coughlan (1999) | UK | Substantive legitimate expectation | Legitimate expectation can confer substantive rights |
| Union of India v. Hindustan Dev. Corp. Ltd. (1993) | India | Legitimate expectation from government promise | Accepted doctrine; protects against arbitrary action |
| State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997) | India | Legitimate expectation from policy | Balances expectation with public interest & policy changes |
| R. (Bancoult) v. Secretary of State (2008) | UK | Legitimate expectation & fundamental rights | Doctrine protects against frustrating fundamental rights |
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is a cornerstone of administrative law ensuring that public authorities act fairly and consistently. It protects individuals from:
Unfair administrative conduct,
Arbitrary changes in policy,
And requires authorities to honour their promises or provide fair procedures before changing course.
The doctrine balances individual fairness with government flexibility, allowing departures from expectations only with adequate notice and justification in the public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments