DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

Generally, an administrative action can be challenged on four grounds as laid down by Lord
Diplock in Council of Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Services in 1984 which are
provided as under –

1. Illegality
2. Irrationality
3. Procedural Impropriety
4. Proportionality

Though these grounds are not exhaustive and cannot be put in watertight compartments yet
these provide sufficient base for the courts to exercise their jurisdiction over administrative
action in the interest of efficiency, fairness and accountability. However, in the modern era,
the rule of estoppel, doctrine of legitimate expectation and doctrine of public
accountability are the fine examples by the courts which have extended the basis of judicial
review to check the arbitrary exercise of the powers by the administrative authorities.

Irrationality as a ground and legitimate expectation to challenge of any decision was

developed by the Court in Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury, later came
to be known as "Wednesbury test" to determine 'irrationality' of an administrative action. A
decision of the administrative authority shall be considered as irrational if it is without the
authority of law, if it is based on no evidence , if it is based on irrelevant and extraneous
consideration, if it is so outrageous in its defiance to logic or accepted norms of moral,
standard that no sensible person, on the given facts and circumstances, could arrive at such a
decision. In other words, it is so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay
within the power of the administrative authority. It is the use of the doctrine in substantive
sense. Therefore, if the decision of the authority is so capricious, perverse, arbitrary,
unreasonable and manifestly unjust that no sensible person can come to that conclusion, court
would quash it.