The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

• This principle was evolved to redress the public when their expectation was not fulfilled.
• The expectation may be based on some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of a
public authority which has the duty of making decisions.
• The public authority can be made accountable in lieu of a ‘legitimate expectation’ of
being treated in a certain way by the administrative authorities owing to some consistent
practice in the past or an express promise made by the concerned authority.

When an individual seeks judicial review on the ground of his legitimate expectation being
defeated, Courts have to first determine whether there existed a legitimate expectation. A
legitimate expectation is said to arise “as a result of a promise, representation, practice or policy
made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of government or a public authority.” Therefore, it
extends to a benefit that an individual has received and can legitimately expect to continue or a
benefit that he expects to receive.

When such a legitimate expectation of an individual is defeated, it gives that person the locus
standi to challenge the administrative decision as illegal. Thus even in the absence of a
substantive right, a legitimate expectation can enable an individual to seek judicial review. The
basic purpose for the same being the expectation in a rule of law society is that holders of public
power and authority must be able to publicly justify their action as legally valid and socially wise
and just. Under such circumstances, it becomes an inherent right of the public in a democracy to
prevent themselves from the abuse of discretion and do not get susceptible to the deadly tentacles
of arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

 In MRF Ltd Kottayam vs Asst Commissioner, Sales Tax,2006, it was observed that the
protection of legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of such expectation
where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. That is to say, the public interest
is overriding.
Therefore, what becomes clear is that legitimate expectations as a ground for challenging
administrative action can be done away with when there is an overriding public interest
and the immediacy of the situation required a change in policy, moving away from past
promises and practice.
 In National Building Constructions Corporation v. S Raghunathan, 1998, it was held that
legitimate expectation is a source of both, procedural and substantive rights. The person
seeking to invoke the doctrine must be aggrieved and must have altered his position. The
doctrine of legitimate expectation assures fair play in administrative action and can
always be enforced as a substantive right. Whether or not an expectation is legitimate is a
question of fact.
 In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries Ltd, 1993,the Supreme
((Invitation of tenders - Power to reject all tenders reserved by authorities - Amount
quoted in highest tender found inadequate - Resort to negotiations with all tenderers -
Offer of significantly higher amount than that quoted in highest tender made in
negotiations - Acceptance of, by authorities - Not arbitrary)).Court has observed that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation falls within the purview
 of the principle of non-arbitrariness as incorporated under Article 14 of the Constitution.
It becomes an enforceable right when the Government instrumentality fails to give due
weight to it.

The courts have been taking a more active role in controlling the exercise of discretionary power
and upholding the rule of law, while recognizing that in certain situations deference to the
Executive is necessary. The courts have to therefore maintain a balance between legitimate
judicial intervention and judicial interference violating the principle of separation of powers, and
as the concept of legitimate expectations continues to develop, maintaining this balance will be
at the forefront