Introduction

The principle of proportionality is European in origin. The concept of the doctrine of

proportionality has been described as the most significant general law principle of European
Administrative Law. The principle of proportionality states that a public authority should
maintain a sense of proportion between its specific aims and the means it uses to attain these
goals so that its actions infringe on individual rights only to the degree necessary to protect
public interest. Administrative actions should have an appropriate relation to the overall reason
for which the authority is granted.

The principle of legitimate expectations means that expectations raised by administrative

conduct have to be respected and fulfilled, at least for the public interest, unless betterment
demands otherwise. And non-fulfillment can have some serious legal consequences. The main
role played by the courts in the entire transaction of this doctrine is to safeguard individuals’
expectations in the face of changes in policy.

1
 Meaning of The Doctrine Of Proportionality

The meaning of the doctrine of proportionality can be that courts must consider the benefits
and drawbacks of an administrative act. If the balance is favourable, the court will affirm the
administrative decision. The administration must create a balance that outlines the advantages
and disadvantages in any decision that is of significance for individuals and the public.The
doctrine of proportionality states that any administrative decision may be invalidated when it
is in any manner not proportional to the offence at the point at which it was directed. Actions
taken by the administration should be proportional to the purpose they are pursuing. A decision-
making authority exercising discretionary power must be able to maintain a balanced
equilibrium between any negative consequences that its decision could affect people’s rights,
liberty, or concern and the goal it is pursuing. Overall, the person making the decision must
possess an understanding of proportion.

Meaning of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

If someone seeks an appeal to the court on account of the legitimacy of his expectation being
denied, the court must first examine whether there was an actual expectation. Legitimate
expectations are believed to come about “as the result of a statement or practice or for the
benefit of the government or an authority of public interest.” Thus, it refers to benefits that an
individual has already received and has the right to expect to receive or which he is expecting
to receive. If an individual’s legitimate expectation is thwarted, it provides the individual the
right to challenge the decision of the administrative authority as unlawful. Even if there is no
substantive claim, legitimate expectations can allow the individual to apply for a judicial
review.

2
 Origin of doctrine of legitimate expectations

The doctrine is not a specific legal right engraved in a particular statute or rule book. The first
time, an attempt was made to establish the principles of the doctrine were in the case of Council
of Civil Service Unions and Others v. Minister for the Civil Service1, that the decision by the
public authority should affect the person such that-

• His rights or obligations are altered, which are enforceable by or against him
• He is deprived of some benefit or advantage which he had been permitted by the
authorizing body in the past and which he could have legitimately expected to enjoy
until a valid ground for withdrawal of the same was communicated to him or he had
been assured by the decision making body that such a benefit or advantage would not
be withdrawn until him being given an opportunity of contending reasons as to why
they were withdrawn.

➢ What is a legitimate expectation

The term “legitimate expectation”, which was coined by Lord Denning in 1969, is an
expectation of an ordinary man to have benefit or relief, which is a consequence of a promise
or representation, either express or implied, made by the administrative authority concerned or
its prior established practice. Hence, a legitimate expectation is an expectation to be treated in
a particular way by the administrative authority or to receive some benefit as a matter of public
law, although no such enforceable right is conferred on him under private law. Thus, this
doctrine creates a central space between ‘no claim’ and a ‘legal claim’.

The Supreme Court of India described this doctrine accurately in Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors.
v. State of Bihar and Ors.2, as “a person can be said to have a ‘legitimate expectation’ of a
particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly
or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such
expectation in the normal course”. Thus, the Supreme Court, through various judgements, has

1
([1985] AC 374)
2
SC 2006

3
developed this doctrine in order to keep a check on the abuse of administrative power by public
bodies.

Whether legitimate expectation is a legal right

There is no legal right conferred on an expectant, the person who has a legitimate expectation,
in the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in administrative actions. As it is not
a legal right, it is not absolutely enforceable in all cases. This doctrine is a concept designed by
the courts; hence, it is up to the courts to decide on its enforceability. Therefore, the legitimate
expectation is neither a legal right given to an expectant nor a duty of administrative authority,
but rather a procedural aspect on the part of the courts for invoking their power of judicial
review of administrative actions that affect the said person, based on the requirement.

The legitimate expectation may not be a distinct enforceable legal right, but if the same is not
given due consideration by the public authority in a decision-making process, it is said that the
decision taken by the authority has violated the rule of non-arbitrariness, an essential
concomitant of the rule of law, and the same can be invalidated on the ground of arbitrariness.
In this regard, the Supreme Court stated, in M. P. Oil Extraction and Anr. etc. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors.3, “the doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ operates in the domain of public
law and, in appropriate cases, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right.”

➢ Illustration

Let us illustrate that a state government introduced a ‘drinking water supply’ programme to
remote areas where people were walking miles to get drinking water. In the notification of the
programme, the names of all villages are mentioned as initial targets. However, through another
notification, the government removed a few previously mentioned villages without citing any
reasons. In this case, the legitimate expectations of the people from these villages, which are
excluded from the purview of the scheme, are violated. If the decision to exclude those villages
by the state government is just and reasonable, the Court cannot intervene. Contrarily, if it was
unfair and arbitrary, the Court would accept the matter and hold the government responsible.
Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation ensures that the administrative authorities are
abiding by the principles of natural justice.

3
SC 1997

4
 Origin and development of doctrine of legitimate expectations in India

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was first discussed in the Indian arena in the case of
State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pilla4. Herein a sanction was issued for the respondents to
open a new aided school and to upgrade the existing schools, however, an Order was issued 15
days later to keep the previous sanction in abeyance. This Order was challenged by the
respondents instead of violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court ruled that
the sanction had entitled the respondents to legitimate expectation and the second order violated
principles of natural justice.

In another Supreme Court case, Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India5
wherein the new criteria for allotment of land was challenged. In the original policy, the
seniority with regard to the allotment was decided based on the date of registration.
Subsequently, a policy change was made in 1990, changing the criteria for deciding seniority
based on the date of approval of the final list.

The Supreme Court thought that the Housing Societies were entitled to ‘legitimate expectation’
owing to the continuous and consistent practice in the past in matters of allotment. The court
further elucidates on the principle stating that the presence of ‘legitimate expectations’ can have
different outcomes and one such outcome is that the authority should not fail ‘legitimate
expectation’ unless there is some justifiable public policy reason for the same.

It is further emphasized that the availability of reasonable opportunity to those likely being
affected by the change in a policy which was consistent in nature is well within the ambit of
acting fairly. The Honorable Court held that such an opportunity should have been given to the
Housing Societies by way of a public notice.

The Supreme Court elaborated on the nature of the doctrine of legitimate expectations in Food
Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries6 that the duty to act fairly on the part
of public authorities, entitles every citizen to have legitimate expectation to be treated fairly
and it is imperative to give due importance to such an expectation to satisfy the requirement of
non-arbitrariness in state action or otherwise it may amount to abuse of power. The Court
further made a remarkable point that such a reasonable or legitimate expectation may not be a
directly enforceable legal right but failure in taking it into account may deem a decision

4
((1988) 4 SCC 669).
5
((1992) 4 SCC 477).
6
((1993) 1. S.C.C. 71).

5
arbitrary. To decide whether an expectation is a legitimate one is contextual and has to be
decided on a case-by-case basis.

In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation7 the Supreme Court has dealt with
the doctrine in great detail, starting with the explanation of the scope of the doctrine in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I (I) 151 which says that a person can
have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain fashion even though he doesn’t have
a legal right to receive the same.

Origin And Development Of Doctrine Of Proportionality

The doctrine of proportionality is a European origin. It is imbibed in European Droit

Administratif and is one of the most important legal principles in the 'European Administrative
Law.' In Britain, the Principle of Proportionality has, for so long, been treated as a part of the
Wednesbury's Principle of reasonableness which postulated the basic standard of
reasonableness that ought to be followed by a public body in its decisions. It stated that if a
choice is so unreasonable to the point that no sensible expert could ever take those actions or
employ the methods adopted, then such activities are subject to be liable and quashed through
Judicial Review.

Although the Doctrine of Proportionality has been dealt with as a part of the Wednesbury's
Principle, the Courts have adopted a different position when it comes to the Judicial
intervention in terms of the Judicial Review. It has been held that the principle entails the
reasonableness test with a heightened scrutiny.

On other words, to apply this doctrine, not only the decisions have to be within the limits of
reasonableness, but only, there has to be a balance between the advantage and disadvantage in
the outcome that has been achieved through the administrative action. Therefore, the extent of
Judicial Review is more intense and greater on account of the 'proportionality' test than the
'reasonableness' test. Furthermore, the Court while applying the rule of proportionality will
think about the public and individual interest in the matter which is not done while applying
the Wednesbury's principle of unresaonableness.

7
((1993) 3 SCC 499).

6
 Types of legitimate expectations

➢ Procedural legitimate expectation

The person claiming to have legitimate expectation has previously possessed an enforceable
right, which was taken away as a result of administrative conduct. Wherever the claimant has
a legitimate and reasonable expectation of having procedural protection, such as providing a
fair hearing or being consulted before taking a decision or a change in policy affecting them
adversely, the court provides procedural protection to the claimant. Because of the provision
of procedural expectation on the ground of legitimate expectation, the concept of fairness is
being met in administrative activities. Thus, providing notice and giving a fair opportunity to
the decision-maker before making any decisions is the result of invoking the principle of
“procedural legitimate expectation”.

➢ Substantive legitimate expectation

Let’s say that the public authorities have given an assurance relating to the rights of an
individual. Subsequently, the said individual will gain a legitimate expectation that his or her
enforceable right will not be defeated. However, the right has been violated due to the conduct
of the administration authorities, like policy changes. Due to such a violation of rights, the
aggrieved party can invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The court may grant the right
that is defeated after examining the facts of the case. This is called the “principle of substantive
legitimate expectation”.

In the initial stages of the development of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, there is only
one kind of relief, i.e., issuing a notice, for the aggrieved party who has a legitimate expectation
and nothing more. That is, there is only a principle of procedural legitimate expectation.
However, the doctrine developed much and included the principle of substantive legitimate
expectation as well through various decided cases. Therefore, the current evolved doctrine of
legitimate expectation not only provides a fair hearing to the claimant but also grants a right
that was infringed arbitrarily. Furthermore, the Supreme Court said, in Punjab Communications
Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.8 “the protection for the substantive legitimate expectation was
based on Wednesbury reasonableness”.

8
SC 1999.

7
 Principle of Proportionality

The principle of proportionality evaluates two aspects of a decision:

• Whether the relative merits of differing objectives or interests were appropriately

weighed or fairly balanced?
• Whether the measure in question was in the circumstances excessively restrictive or
inflicted an unnecessary burden on affected persons.

The Court in such a case will not be concerned with the correctness of the decision rather the
method to reach such decision. [Maharashtra Law Development Corporation Vs. State of
Maharashtra9. The decision making process involves attributing relative importance to various
aspects in the case and there the doctrine of proportionality enters. In Ranjit Thakur Vs Union
of India10, wherein, an Army Officer disobeyed the lawful command of his superior officer by
not eating food offered to him. Court Martial proceedings were initiated and a sentence of one
year rigorous punishment was imposed. He was also dismissed from service, with added
disqualification that he would be unfit for future employments.

It was held that Judicial Review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is
directed against the decision making process. The question of the choice and quantum of
punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court-Martial. But the sentence has
to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It shouldn't be
so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive
evidence of bias.

The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that
even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court-Martial, if
the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the
sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognized
grounds of Judicial Review. All powers have legal limits.

9
(2011) 15 SSC 616
10
1987) 4 SCC 611]

8
 Result of invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation

Once an individual, during court proceedings, expresses his legitimate expectation, the court
may grant a benefit or relief in favour of the expectant according to the previous conduct or
activities performed by the authority. However, relief from the administrative authorities
cannot be claimed directly in all cases where the doctrine is applied because the applicant has
no definite and absolute right to claim relief. The grant of relief is decided based on the merits
of the case.

The relief may be vitiating the administrative action, making the promise made by the authority
unenforceable, or withdrawing the dealing between the expectant and the administrative
authority. For the above purposes, writs like mandamus or certiorari can be passed.

➢ Limited in scope

The legitimate expectation shall be only one of the grounds for seeking a judicial review of an
administrative action by the court, but the scope of the grant of relief is very limited, as stated
by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development
Corporation and Ors. (1993).

➢ Right to be heard

The applicant, by virtue of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, is conferred with the right to
have a fair hearing before a judgment is passed, and, thus, the doctrine has a close relationship
with the right to be heard. This will ensure that the non-statutory administrative powers of
public authorities are enforced with the application of ethics of fairness and reasonableness.
Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation protects the principle of natural justice in the
actions of public authorities by retaining the established practice or keeping its promise.

➢ Exceptions against the legitimate expectation

The famous authority for the doctrine of legitimate expectation, Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors.
v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006), the Supreme Court observed that there are a few defences to
make the plea of legitimate expectation inapplicable. The Court said, “public interest, policy
change, the conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the
decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the ‘legitimate expectation’.” Thus, the
legitimate expectation has a few exceptions. Let us look at more exceptions.

9
 Result of invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked by a person in civil litigation seeking
judicial intervention or control over administrative actions if the below essential elements of
the said doctrine are fulfilled.

➢ The expectation must be legitimate

To apply the above-mentioned doctrine of legitimate expectation, the expectation grown in a

person’s mind must be legitimate or reasonable. If any prudent and ordinary man expects the
same responsiveness or attitude from a particular public authority, then the expectation is said
to be legitimate. If the expectation is just a random thought not derived from or inferred from
a particular past event, it cannot be considered legitimate. Therefore, the court considers the
question of the legitimacy of the expectation as a question of fact and decides, not given the
expectant’s perception but from the view of the larger public interest.

Furthermore, expectation is not synonymous with anticipation, wish, desire, or hope,

irrespective of their legitimacy. Also, mere disappointment does not result in legal
consequences. The legitimate expectation is not even equated with terms like ‘claim’ or
‘demand’, which are sought before the courts to enforce the rights they lost, violated, or left
unimplemented. The legitimacy of an individual’s expectations does not depend upon the moral
obligations of the public authority. Instead, legitimacy is decided based on the laws or customs
or, at least, the established practice of the authority, provided it has consistency in its practice.

➢ Presence of an established and regular practice or express promise

There must be an established and regular practice or an express promise on the part of the
administrative authority concerned. The term “established and regular practice” refers to the
practices that are within the powers of the authority and that have been performed regularly by
a particular public authority in the past for a considerable period. Because of such prior,
established practice, the applicant or claimant has a legitimate expectation.

➢ Relationship between expectant and administrative authority

There must be an established relationship between government authorities and the expectant.
The relationship can be a commercial transaction, a dealing, or even a negotiation on a
particular issue. The only requirement is that the expectant should have been engaged in a
recognised relationship with the authorities concerned. If the party, either in the past or present,

10
has no relationship with the authority, then he cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. Besides this, the other essential aspect is that the established practice, because of
which the expectant gained a legitimate expectation, shall be concerning the aforesaid dealing
or negotiation.

➢ Presence of an arbitrary decision by the administrative authority

The decision taken by the administrative authority regarding the issue raised by the claimant
must be arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice. If the
court finds that the public authority has not considered factors such as public interest or policy
while passing an order, which is against the claimant, who is not even heard before taking such
a decision, then there is a strong basis for invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Contrarily, if the administrative authority took a decision in view of the larger public interest
or according to policy, the court would not interfere with the functioning of the public authority,
except in cases where the administrative decision constitutes an abuse of power. If there is no
abuse of power and the decision taken by the authority is bona fide, the administrative actions
will not go through judicial review.

Otherwise, if the administrative authority made the decision on fair and reasonable terms, the
court will interfere and strike down such a decision or order, even if it affects the legitimate
expectation of the claimant. Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is implemented
in case of the presence of an arbitrary decision, not in the case of procedural fairness.

➢ The claimant must have a locus standi

Besides the above essential element, which ensures a foundation to invoke the doctrine of
legitimate expectation, the claimant must also prove that his case has locus standi to get a
judicial review of the administrative actions by applying the said doctrine. However, in Union
of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. (1993), the Supreme Court
decided that “legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial
review“. Thus, the doctrine of legitimate expectation comes with the doctrine of locus standi.

11
 Article 14 and Legitimate Expectation

It is a well-known fact that the actions of the State and its agencies must conform to the
principle of non-arbitrariness and fairness, which is one of the main features of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, in all its activities. Hence, the public authority has some limitations
or restrictions in using its powers because absolute power corrupts absolutely. The State and
its authorities should ensure that their activities are for the public good because Article 14
imposes on the State, including public authorities, the obligation to function fairly and justly.
In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1992), the Supreme Court
observed: “This (Article 14) imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is
`fair play in action’. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises
a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with
the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the
decision-making process in all State actions.” For the implementation of this aspect of non-
arbitrariness under Article 14, it is necessary for the administrative authorities to fairly consider
the legitimate expectations of claimants while rendering a decision or passing an order, even
though it is not a vested right.

It is now an established fact that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution can be enforced not only
in cases of arbitrary ‘class legislation’, but also in cases of arbitrary ‘state action’. Therefore,
the doctrine is being hailed as a fine principle of administrative jurisprudence for reconciling
power with liberty.

12
 Important case laws

➢ Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association v. State of Karnataka

(1991)

This case is an apt example of case law where the principles of natural justice have taken force
and justice for the poor people is served based on legitimate expectations.

The facts of the case are that the Karnataka government announced a particular area as the
“slum clearance area”, which was cancelled through another notification, causing a violation
of the legitimate expectation of those people residing in the before-mentioned area. On
examining all the facts of the case, the Supreme Court decided that there was an apparent
infringement of the principles of natural justice.

➢ Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (1999)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the legitimate expectation can be both procedural and
substantive because this doctrine goes with the concept of the rule of law, which implements
fairness in both procedural and substantive aspects. In this case, the Court further clarified that
the procedural aspect of legitimate expectation is granting the right to be heard or any other
proper procedure before the authority makes any change to its previous decision. Whereas, the
substantive aspect of the doctrine is the grant or continuance of some benefit, which is
substantive in nature. Both of these aspects should be provided to the claimant; if not, then the
authorities must cite reasonable grounds for the same as well as provide a fair chance to the
expectant before taking a decision or passing an order.

➢ Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan (2003)

In this case, the appellant is Dr. Chanchal Goyal, who was recruited under the local self-
government department, the government of Rajasthan. In the appointment order, it was
specified that her recruitment is purely temporary, i.e., for the period of six months or till she
was selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. Generally, her
continuance cannot go beyond one year in the absence of the approval of the service
commission. However, by virtue of the successive extension orders, her tenure ended even after
one year. Later, on the terms of the appointment order, she was removed from the post. She
took the plea of legitimate expectation. The Supreme Court rejected the plea and ruled that
“mere continuance in service does not imply waiver (of the stipulation mentioned in the
appointment order)”.

13
 Conclusion
The doctrine has undoubtedly gained significance in the Indian Courts, giving locus standi to
a person who may or may not have a direct legal right. The doctrine of legitimate expectations
very well leads to a procedural right i.e. right to judicial review in India but the substantive
aspect of the doctrine can be said to be in a budding stage. There has been hesitance amongst
academicians as to whether the doctrine should apply to substantive rights at all. It has been
argued that application of the doctrine to substantive rights might result in failure of separation
of powers and would qualify as overstepping of Judiciary’s powers.

Besides this, the doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law, i.e., administrative law, was
praised as it helps the court deliver justice to the people who could not seek relief based on the
statutory provisions or law. It also makes the State and its authorities or departments
accountable and responsible towards the people of the country. Thus, we can conclude that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation is based on the principle that public power is a trust that must
be exercised in the best interest of its beneficiaries, i.e., the people.

References

• Lord Denning “Recent Development in the Doctrine of Consideration”, Modern Law

Review, Vol. 15, 1956.
• A.K.Srivastava, Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation (1995),
http://www.ijtr.nic.in/articles/art13.pdf.
• Confederation of Ex-Servicemen v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2945.
• B.N.Pandey, Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, Banaras Law Journal, Vol. 31
(2002).
• Sarica AR, Doctrine of legitimate expectations, ACADEMIKE,
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-legitimate-expectations/.

14
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a great pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to my course instructor
and guide Dr. ANUJA MISHRA. Her dedication and keen interest above all and her
overwhelming attitude to help her student had been solely and mainly responsible or
completing my work. Her scholarly and timely advice,

Meticulous scrutiny, and her logical approach has helped me to a very great exert to accomplish
my project in an excellent manner.

I owe a deep sense of gratitude to Prof. S.P. SRIVASTAVA Dean of school of law and
governance, cusb for making sure that we are provided with best facilities and surrounding to
fetch the best of ourselves,

His prompt inspiration, timely suggestion with the kindness, enthusiasm and dynamism has
also enable me to complete my project on time. It is my privilege to thanks my parents for their
constant encuragment throughout my research period.

@ Prateek Tiwari

15
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction 1

2. Meaning of the doctrine 2

3. Origin of the doctrine 3

4. Whether legitimate expectation is a legal right 4

5. Development in India 5-6

6. Types of legitimate expectations 7

7. Principle of Proportionality 8

8. Result of invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation 9

9. Result of invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation 10-11

10. Article 14 and Legitimate Expectation 12

11. Important case laws 13

12. Conclusion 14

13. Reference 14

16
 CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

PROJECT ASSIGNMENT ON –

DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION

SUBMITTED TO – Dr. ANUJA MISHRA

{ASSIATANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE}

SUBMITTED BY – PRATEEK TIWARI

ENROLLMENT NO. – CUSB2213125063

SECTION – A

SUBJECT – AMINISTRATIVE LAW

17