Legitimate expectation in Administrative Law
Definition:
Legitimate expectation is a principle in administrative law that protects a person’s expectation of a benefit, policy, or procedure, based on a promise or past practice by a public authority. It does not confer a legal right but creates a procedural or substantive interest that must be considered before changing a decision or policy.
Types of Legitimate Expectation:
Procedural Legitimate Expectation – Expectation that a certain procedure (e.g., hearing, consultation) will be followed.
Substantive Legitimate Expectation – Expectation of receiving a specific benefit or continuation of a policy, not just procedure.
Key Elements of Legitimate Expectation:
Clear and unambiguous representation or past consistent practice by a public authority.
Reliance on that representation by the affected individual or group.
The expectation must be reasonable and lawful.
It should not conflict with overriding public interest or law.
Case Laws with Detailed Explanation:
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ Case)
House of Lords
Facts:
The UK government banned employees at GCHQ from joining trade unions without consulting them, though consultation had been a long-standing practice.
Held:
The House of Lords recognized the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The employees had a procedural legitimate expectation of being consulted due to past practice.
Principle:
Legitimate expectation arises not only from express promises but also from consistent past practices. However, the court upheld the government's action due to national security, demonstrating that such expectations can be overridden by public interest.
Significance:
This case formally introduced legitimate expectation as a ground of judicial review in UK administrative law.
2. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
Facts:
Miss Coughlan, a severely disabled woman, was assured a “home for life” at Mardon House by the health authority. Later, the authority decided to close the facility.
Held:
The court found that this was a substantive legitimate expectation, not just procedural. The promise was clear, unambiguous, and gave rise to a legitimate expectation that she would not be moved.
Principle:
When a public authority makes a clear promise to a specific person, departing from that promise can be unfair and is subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Established that substantive expectations based on specific promises can be enforced unless there is an overriding public interest.
3. Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 – India
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The society was on a priority list for land allotment. Later, the government changed the priority criteria and pushed them down the list.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the government could not arbitrarily alter the criteria as the society had a legitimate expectation based on the existing priority list.
Principle:
A consistent administrative practice, when departed from without valid reason, violates the principle of legitimate expectation.
Significance:
This case brought the doctrine into Indian administrative law, recognizing that sudden policy changes that defeat legitimate expectations can be unlawful.
4. Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499 – India
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The government categorized steel manufacturers into "bulk buyers" and "non-bulk buyers", effectively denying some companies fair opportunity.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that though no individual right existed, the categorization created a legitimate expectation of equal treatment. The Court acknowledged that legitimate expectation can act as a check on arbitrary executive actions.
Principle:
Even in commercial or economic policy, legitimate expectations cannot be ignored without justification. They must be fairly dealt with.
Significance:
Clarified that legitimate expectation is linked to non-arbitrariness and fairness in administrative actions.
5. State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai (1988) 4 SCC 669 – India
Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Government issued a circular promising certain building concessions. People started construction relying on it. Later, the government withdrew the circular.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that people had altered their position based on the government’s representation, creating a legitimate expectation that must be respected.
Principle:
Once a public authority makes a representation, and people act upon it, it cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily, especially when people have suffered a detriment.
Significance:
Strengthened the link between legitimate expectation and the doctrine of promissory estoppel in Indian law.
Conclusion:
The doctrine of legitimate expectation ensures that public authorities act fairly, transparently, and consistently. It does not create a binding legal right, but it offers procedural and sometimes substantive protection when public bodies deviate from their promises or practices.
In UK law, it’s rooted in the rule of law and fairness.
In Indian law, it's closely tied with Article 14 (right to equality) and the doctrine of arbitrariness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments