DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY

ESTOPPEL AND ITS

APPLICATION AGAINST
GOVERNMENT .
INTRODUCTION
 Doctrine developed by equity to prevent injustice.
 Variously been described as “equitable estoppel”, “quasi-estoppel” an “new estoppel”. 
 The three essentials of promissory estoppel established in this case are:-

1. The promise should be made by a person to another,

2. The other makes a move upon the said promise and,
3. Such a move should have damaged the enjoyment of the person to whom the promise has
been made.
 Used even if promisee acting in reliance on the promise does not incur any loss.
 DIFFERENCE
 ESTOPPEL  PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

1. Representation of an actual fact. 1. Offer guarantees regarding future

behavior.
2. Evidentiary rule.
2. Substantive law.
3. Restricted ambit.
3. Wider and more flexible.
4. Doesn’t gives rise to CoA.
4. Gives rise to CoA.
APPLICATION OF PROMISORRY
ESTOPPEL AGAINST GOVERNMENT
 The doctrine of promissory estoppel has also been applied against the Government.
 Defence of executive necessity has been categorically negatived.
 SC refused to make any distinction between a private individual and a public body.
 Striking a balance between individual rights and larger public intrests is necessary.
 Exceptions-

1. Unconstitutional promises.
2. Against Public Policy.
 CONCLUSION
 Originating as a rule of substantive law in both India & England is entirely judiciary-made.
 Achieving justice by avoiding fraud and fostering morality & good faith. 
 Govt. cannot subsequently fail to honour its promise if it was made to a person. 
 Developed by Indian courts and is now mature enough to stand on its own. 
 One may trust the government's legal commitment and act  with confidence since the rule of
law exists to safeguard its inhabitants.