ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TOPIC: DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXCEPTION

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

SANIDHYA SADANAND NAYAK BHAVITHA.BIRDALA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW BALLB(B)5TH SEMESTER
INTRODUCTION:

 An expectation could be based on an express promise, or representation or by established

past action or settled conduct. It could be a representation of the individual or generally to
a class of persons. Whether an expectation exists is a question of law, but clear statutory
words override any expectation, however, founded.
 However, as an equity doctrine, it is not rigid and operates in areas of manifest injustice. It
enforces a certain standard of public morality in all public dealings.
 As a doctrine, it takes its place beside such principles as rules of natural justice, rule of
law, non-arbitrariness, reasonableness, fairness, promissory estoppel, fiduciary duty and
perhaps, proportionality to check the abuse of the exercise of administrative power.
 The principle at the root of the doctrine is Rule of Law which requires regularity,
predictability and certainly the governments dealing with the public.
CATEGORIES:

 As the legitimate expectation doctrine gained acceptance, it was invoked in a wider range
of cases which can be conveniently summarised into four categories:
 1. The first was cases in which a person had relied upon a policy or norm of general
application but was then subjected to a different policy or norm.
 2. The second category, which was a slight variation on the first, included cases in which a
policy or norm of general application existed and continued but was not applied to the case
at hand.
 3. A third category arose when an individual received a promise or representation which
was not honored due to a subsequent change to a policy or norm of general application.
 4. A fourth category, which was a variation on the third, arose when an individual received
a promise or representation which was subsequently dishonored, not because there had
been a general change in policy, but rather because the decision maker had changed its
mind in that instance.
TYPES:

 Procedural Legitimate Expectation-

 Denotes the existence of some process right the applicant claims to possess as a result of
behavior by the public body that generates the expectation.
 Substantive Legitimate Expectation-
 Refers to the situation in which the applicant seeks a particular benefit or commodity, such
as a welfare benefit or license. 
 Some of the arguments in favor of substantive legitimate expectations are: it creates
fairness in public administration, reliance, and trust in government, the principle of
equality, upholds rule of law.
 In Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries Ltd, the Supreme
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.
CIRCUMSTANCES:

 Circumstances which may lead to the formation of legitimate

expectations were postulated in Madras City Wine Merchants v.
State of Tamil Nadu ((1994)-
 If there was some explicit promise or representation made by the
administrative body
 That such a promise was clear and unambiguous
 The existence of a consistent practice in the past which the person
can reasonably expect to operate in the same way
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.