New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court of India on 19/11/2024 while speaking through a Bench consisting of Justice J.B. PARDIWALA & Justice MANOJ MISRA explained the Features of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.

New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court of India on 19/11/2024 while speaking through a Bench consisting of Justice J.B. PARDIWALA & Justice MANOJ MISRA explained the Features of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in the case titled ARMY Welfare Education Society New Delhi Versus Sunil Kumar Sharma & Ors. Civil appeal nos. 7256-7259 OF 2024

The Supreme Court of India discussed its earlier cases on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation referring to Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499 saying that legitimate expectation is a creature of public law aimed at combating arbitrariness in executive action by public authorities. It held thus:-

“Time is a three-fold present: the present as we experience it, the past as a present memory and the future as a present expectation. For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right.

However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences.

A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in a regular and natural sequence. Again, it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense.”

In Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 8 SCC 381, this Court explained the doctrine of legitimate expectation in details as follows:- “What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term “established practice” refers to a regular, consistent, predictable and certain onduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by the courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, 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.

As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above “fairness in action” but far below “promissory estoppel”. It may only entitle an expectant: (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the courts may grant a direction requiring the authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bona fide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the “legitimate expectation”.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognized legal relationship with the authority. A total stranger unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings with the authority and who has not entered into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.”

In Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2008) 2 SCC 161, this Court, while differentiating between legitimate expectation on the one hand and anticipation, wishes and desire on the other, observed thus:- “A legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. [See Chanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 322] and Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499] It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the public. We do not doubt that the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters.”

After discussing the above said judgments the Apex Court brought forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation:

First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation;

Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings;

Thirdly, expectation which is based on sporadic casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be treated as a legitimate expectation;

Fourthly, legitimate expectation operates with both substantive and procedural matters;

Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.

Sixthly, a plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority. It cannot be invoked by a total stranger to the authority merely on the ground that the authority has to act fairly generally.