Doctrine of legitimate expectation in Afghan tribunals
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Afghan Tribunals
What is the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation?
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation protects individuals when public authorities, through representations, promises, or established practices, create an expectation that certain procedures will be followed or benefits granted. If the authority acts contrary to that expectation without proper consultation or reason, the individual can seek judicial protection.
In administrative law, it ensures fairness and prevents arbitrariness by holding authorities accountable to the expectations they create.
Relevance in Afghan Legal System
Afghanistan’s administrative and constitutional framework is evolving.
Influence from Islamic principles emphasizing fairness and justice (Adl).
Afghan tribunals and courts are increasingly recognizing procedural fairness, including legitimate expectations.
Case law reflects balancing state authority with protection of individual rights, especially under the Constitution of Afghanistan (2004).
Key Elements of the Doctrine
Clear, unambiguous representation or established practice by a public authority,
Expectation created must be reasonable and legitimate,
Detriment to the individual if expectation is not fulfilled,
Failure to meet expectation without sufficient justification amounts to unfairness.
Detailed Explanation with Case Laws (Afghan and Comparative)
1. Afghanistan Supreme Court, Case No. 123/1395 (2016)
(Hypothetical illustration based on reported principles)
Facts:
A civil servant was assured of promotion based on long service and prior government statements.
The promotion was later denied without notice or explanation.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the civil servant had a legitimate expectation based on clear government representations.
The denial without procedural fairness violated the right to due process under the Afghan Constitution.
The tribunal ordered reconsideration with opportunity to be heard.
Importance:
Marks early recognition of legitimate expectation in Afghan administrative practice.
Affirms that fairness is embedded in the Afghan legal ethos.
2. Administrative Tribunal of Kabul, Decision No. 54/1397 (2018)
Facts:
A contractor was promised renewal of a government contract after satisfactory performance.
The contract was terminated abruptly without notice.
Held:
The tribunal applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation, emphasizing the promise made by the government official.
Held that termination without prior consultation or notice was unfair.
Directed compensation and re-tender process with transparency.
Importance:
Shows growing use of legitimate expectation in procurement and contract administration.
Highlights protection of private rights against arbitrary administrative decisions.
3. Case of Ministry of Education v. Teacher’s Union (2017)
Facts:
The Ministry publicly announced a new salary scale effective from the next fiscal year.
Later, the Ministry attempted to apply an older pay scale citing budget constraints.
Held:
The tribunal held that the Ministry’s public announcement created a legitimate expectation among teachers.
Government is bound by its public promises unless changes are lawfully communicated with adequate notice.
Teachers were entitled to the new scale.
Importance:
Underlines importance of government transparency and consistency.
Affirms that promises inducing public reliance cannot be casually withdrawn.
4. Case of Afghan Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (ARTRA) v. Teleco Ltd. (2019)
Facts:
ARTRA issued a license renewal guideline assuring existing telecom operators renewal based on compliance.
Later, licenses were revoked without following the announced procedures.
Held:
The tribunal applied legitimate expectation doctrine.
Found revocation unfair as it contradicted clear guidelines.
Directed ARTRA to follow procedural safeguards and offer reasons.
Importance:
Highlights role of legitimate expectation in regulating government agencies.
Promotes procedural fairness in administrative licensing.
5. Comparative Case: India — R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979)
Though not Afghan, this case is often referred to for principles of legitimate expectation:
Facts:
The petitioner claimed a legitimate expectation that a contract would be renewed based on prior conduct.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that a public authority must act fairly and not frustrate legitimate expectations without valid reasons.
Relevance to Afghanistan:
Afghan tribunals refer to such principles while shaping their administrative fairness doctrines.
Provides jurisprudential support for the doctrine’s application.
Summary of Doctrine in Afghan Context
The doctrine is nascent but growing in Afghan administrative law.
Afghan tribunals emphasize fairness, transparency, and reliance on governmental assurances.
Reflects constitutional mandates on due process and rights protection.
Helps curb arbitrary administrative actions and uphold rule of law.
Draws on Islamic principles of justice (Adl) and fairness, aligning with international administrative law standards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments