Abstract: Administrative law is broad in scope, making it challenging to neatly divide up its various roles into discrete categories. As a result, a number of doctrines and guiding principles have been developed to guarantee the administration's correct operation such as the judicial duties of the local public authorities, the notions of unreasonableness, proportionality, and natural justice, etc. One of these is the justifiable Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations, which is not expounded upon in any Indian statute or legislation. Nonetheless, this idea was crucial in shaping Indian administrative law, particularly that part that dealt with the judicial review theory.

Introduction

The Court uses a number of instruments, including the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations, to examine administrative actions. This Doctrine covers the relationship between a person and a public authority. This doctrine states that in the absence of a "legitimate expectation," the public authority may be held accountable. Because of a previous consistent practice or an explicit promise made by the relevant authority, an individual may have a reasonable or fair expectation that they will be treated in a particular manner by the administrative authorities.

What is ‘Legitimate Expectations”?

The phrase "legitimate expectation," first used by Lord Denning in 1969, refers to the expectation of a regular man to receive a benefit or relief as a result of an explicit or implicit promise or representation made by the relevant administrative authority, or as a result of its previously established practice. Therefore, even while he does not have an enforceable right of this kind under private law, a legitimate expectation is one that he will be handled by the administrative body in a specific manner or that he will benefit in some way as a matter of public law. This approach, then, establishes a middle ground between "no claim" and "legal claim."

"A person can be said to have a legitimate expectation of a particular treatment, if any representation 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." The Supreme Court of India accurately described this doctrine in Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. As a result, the Supreme Court has established this theory through a number of rulings to prevent public agencies from abusing their administrative authority.

Whether Legitimate Expectation is a legal right?

The use of the Doctrine of legitimate expectation in administrative proceedings does not grant any legal rights to the person who has a legitimate expectation. It is not always enforceable because it is not a legally recognized right. Since the courts created this doctrine, they have the final say over whether or not it can be applied.

Therefore, the legitimate expectation is a procedural aspect of the courts using their power of judicial review of administrative actions that affect the said person, based on the requirement, rather than a legal right granted to an expectant or a duty of administrative authority.

Even though the legitimate expectation might not be a clearly defined and enforceable legal right, it can still be invalidated on the grounds of arbitrariness if it is not given proper weight by the public authority during the decision-making process. This is because the rule of non-arbitrariness is a fundamental component of the rule of law. Regarding this, the Supreme Court declared that "the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates in the domain of public law and, in appropriate cases, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right" in M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations Development and Origin in India

In the Indian context, the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was initially deliberated in the State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai. Here, the respondents were given permission to build a new assisted school and renovate their current ones. However, a 15-day-later order was issued to maintain the status quo of the earlier punishment. Rather than arguing that this Order violated natural justice principles, the respondents contested it. The Supreme Court decided that the second order went against natural justice principles and that the respondents had genuine expectations as a result of the sanction.

In Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India , another case heard by the Supreme Court, the new standards for land allocation were contested. According to the initial policy, the date of registration determined seniority with respect to allotment. Later, in 1990, a policy modification was implemented that altered the seniority determination criterion to take into account the date the final list was approved.

The Housing Societies were deemed to have a "legitimate expectation" by the Supreme Court because of their long history of regular and continuous allocation practices. The court goes on to explain the idea that the existence of "legitimate expectations" can lead to a variety of results, one of which is that the authority shouldn't violate "legitimate expectations" unless there is a valid public policy justification to do otherwise. It is also underlined that providing a reasonable chance to individuals who would be impacted by a policy change that was consistent with the policy falls well within the definition of acting fairly. The Honorable Court determined that a public notice ought to have been used to provide the Housing Societies with this chance.

In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries , the Supreme Court expounded upon the concept of legitimate expectations. The court held that public authorities have a duty to act fairly, which entitles every citizen to a legitimate expectation of fair treatment. It is crucial to accord due importance to such an expectation in order to satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness in state action, lest it be construed as an abuse of power. The Court also made the astounding point that, even if a judgment may not be arbitrary if it fails to take into consideration a reasonable or legitimate expectation, it may nonetheless be immediately enforceable under the law. Each instance is evaluated individually to determine the reasonable Expectation.

The Supreme Court addressed the doctrine in great detail in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation . The explanation of the doctrine's scope can be found in Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I (I) 151, which states that “an individual may legitimately expect to be treated in a particular way even though they do not legally have the right to do so.”

Elements of Legitimate Expectations

1. The Expectation must be Legitimate - A person's expectations must be reasonable or legitimate in order to be covered by the previously stated theory of legitimate expectation. An expectation is considered genuine if it is shared by any reasonable and responsible person who anticipates the same level of responsiveness or attitude from a certain public authority. The expectation cannot be justified if it is merely a whim that is not based on or implied from a specific prior occurrence. As a result, the court views the legality of the expectation as a factual issue and makes its decision based on the greater good of the public interest rather than the expectant's perspective. 
2. Established and Regular Practice is Present - Either a clear commitment from the relevant administrative authority or a well-established, consistent practice is required. The phrase "established and regular practice" describes actions that fall under the purview of the authority and have been carried out consistently by a certain public authority for a sizable amount of time in the past. Due to this previous, well-established practice, the claimant or applicant is entitled to reasonable expectations.
3. Relationship Between expectant and administrative authority - The expected and the government officials need to have a well-established relationship. The relationship may be a business deal, a dealing, or even a negotiation over a specific matter. All that is necessary is for the expectant to have had an established contact with the relevant authorities. The notion of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked by a party who has no contact with the authority, either in the past or in the present. In addition, the second crucial element is that the established practice pertaining to the aforementioned dealing or negotiation is what gave rise to the expectant's rightful expectation.
4. Locus Standi - In addition to providing the necessary groundwork for invoking the theory of legitimate expectation, the claimant must demonstrate that his case has the standing to request a judicial review of the administrative proceedings through the application of the aforementioned doctrine. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. that the applicant had "sufficient locus standi for judicial review" because of their genuine expectations. Therefore, the locus standi concept is associated with the justifiable expectation doctrine.

Types of Legitimate Expectations

1. Procedural Legitimate Expectations

The individual asserting legitimate expectations had an enforceable right in the past, but it was taken away due to actions done by the administration. The court affords procedural protection to the claimant if the claimant has a legitimate and reasonable expectation of receiving it, such as when it comes to a fair hearing or being consulted before making a judgment or changing a policy that may negatively affect them. Administrative operations are meeting the concept of fairness since they provide procedural expectations based on genuine expectations. Invoking the principle of "procedural legitimate expectation" leads to the decision-maker being given notice and given a fair opportunity before making any conclusions.

2. Substantive Legitimate Expectations

Assume for the moment that an individual's rights have been guaranteed by the state. The aforementioned person will then have a legitimate expectation that their enforceable right won't be violated. However, the administrative authorities' actions, such as changing policies, have resulted in violations of the right. The party who has been harmed may use the theory of legitimate expectation as justification for the infringement of rights. The right that is defeated may be granted by the court after reviewing the case's facts. The "principle of substantive legitimate expectation" is what is meant by this.

When the notion of reasonable expectation is first developing, the harmed party with a legitimate expectation is only entitled to one type of relief—issuing a notice—and nothing more. In other words, the only reasonable expectation is procedural. But via a number of determined decisions, the concept expanded significantly and came to encompass the idea of substantive legitimate expectation as well. As a result, the claimant is granted a right that was unjustly violated in addition to a fair hearing under the recently developed theory of legitimate expectation. In addition, the Supreme Court stated that "the protection for the substantive legitimate expectation was based on Wednesbury reasonableness" in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Article 14 and Legitimate Expectations

It is well knowledge that one of the primary tenets of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is that the State and its agencies must conduct themselves in a way that upholds the principles of non-arbitrariness and justice in all of their endeavors. Because total power corrupts absolutely, the public authority is thus subject to certain constraints while exercising its authority. Because Article 14 requires the State, including public authorities, to operate justly and fairly, the State and its authorities must make sure that their actions serve the public interest. The Supreme Court said in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries that Article 14 requires fairness in behavior and the adoption of a process that is "fair play in action."

A legitimate expectation that each citizen will be treated fairly in his interactions with the State and its agencies is raised by the due observance of this obligation as a component of good administration, and this element is a necessary part of the decision-making process in all State actions. Although it is not a vested right, the administrative authorities must fairly evaluate the reasonable expectations of claimants when making a decision or issuing an order in order to apply this component of non-arbitrariness under Article 14. It is now a well-established fact that arbitrary "state action" as well as arbitrary "class legislation" might be subject to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Important Case Laws

Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association v State of Karnataka

This case serves as a good illustration of case law where the natural justice principles have been applied and justice for the impoverished is being administered in accordance with legitimate expectations. According to the case's circumstances, the Karnataka government declared a certain area to be a "slum clearance area," but it later withdrew that announcement through another notification, violating the rightful expectations of the residents of the area in question. The Supreme Court determined that there had been an apparent violation of the natural justice standards after considering all of the case's facts.

Punjab Communications Ltd. v Union of India and Ors.

Because this approach aligns with the idea of the rule of law, which implements fairness in both procedural and substantive elements, the Supreme Court decided in this decision that the legitimate expectation can be both procedural and substantive. In this instance, the Court went on to say that affording the opportunity to a hearing prior to the authority making any modifications to its earlier ruling constitutes the procedural component of legitimate expectation. On the other hand, the doctrine's substantive component—which is the provision or maintenance of a benefit—is substantive in character. The claimant should be given access to both of these aspects; if not, the authorities must provide a fair chance to the expectant before making a judgment and provide acceptable grounds for the authorities' decision.

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

The appellant in this case is Dr. Chanchal Goyal, who was hired by the Rajasthani government's local self-government department. Her recruitment is temporary, meaning it will last for six months or until the Rajasthan Public Service Commission selects her, whichever comes first, according to the appointment order. Generally, without the service commission's approval, her continuation cannot last longer than a year. But even after a year, her service came to an end due to the repeated orders for extensions. She was later relieved of her position in accordance with the conditions of the appointment order. She embraced the plea of legitimate expectation. The plea was denied by the Supreme Court, which declared that "mere continuance in service does not imply waiver."

Conclusion

This approach, which grants locus standi to an individual who may or may not have a direct legal claim, has certainly gained prominence in Indian courts. In India, the right to judicial review is a procedural right that is directly linked to the theory of legitimate expectations. However, the substantive part of the doctrine is still in its early stages of development. Academicians have disagreed about whether the idea should extend to substantive rights in general. Some have contended that extending the doctrine to substantive rights could lead to a breakdown in the separation of powers and constitute an overreach of the judiciary's authority.

In addition, the theory of legitimate expectation in public law, or administrative law, was commended for assisting the court in providing justice to those who were unable to seek remedy under the terms of the statute or other legal framework. Additionally, it establishes accountability and responsibility between the State and its agencies and authorities and the nation's citizens. We can therefore draw the conclusion that the foundation of the legitimate expectation concept is the idea that public authority is a trust that has to be used for the benefit of its beneficiaries, or the people.

.    .    .

References:

• https://www.legalbites.in/administrative-law/doctrine
• https://indiankanoon.org/search