Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
unni soidn lmlnsadhsa ojbzihkhh ijihasaiidhihfiushifhashfiuah ojbfkhkhbadk
Typology: Essays (university)
1 / 11
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
SUBMITTED TO -Asst. PROF. UNNI RAMCHANDRAN SUBMITTED BY - PRABHAT SINGH ROLL NO -A COURSE -B.A.LL.B (HONS.)
There are several principles of Administrative Law, which have been evolved by the courts for the purpose of controlling the exercise of power so that it does not lead to arbitrariness or abuse of power. These principles are intended to provide safeguard to the citizens against abuse or misuse of power by the instrumentalities or agencies of the State. One of the latest and important of these principles is the ‘doctrine of legitimate expectation’ , which is an outcome of synthesis between the principle of administrative fairness (a component of the principles of natural justice) and the rule of estoppel.
It was, in fact, for the purpose of restricting the right to be heard that 'legitimate expectation' was introduced into the law. It made its first appearance in an English case where alien students of 'Scientology' were refused extension of their entry permits as an act of policy by the Home Secretary, who had announced that no discretionary benefits would be granted to this sect. They had no legitimate expectation of extension beyond the permitted time and so no right to a hearing, though revocation of their permits within that time would have been contrary to legitimate expectation. Official statements of policy may cancel legitimate expectation; just as they may create it.^1
"A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such
1 Administrative Law. 6th Edn. by HWR Wade at page 522
This is a secondary research based paper, essentially for academic purposes. This article uses secondary research sources which include Books, Articles, and Blogs, Research papers, videos and opinions of learner authors.
OBJECTIVES
The paper aims to: -
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
HYPOTHESIS
Legitimate expectation arises when you expect of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority.
The evolvement of the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in the Common law jurisdiction can been traced to an obiter dictum of Lord Denning M. R in Sehmidt v. Secretary of Home Affairs 4 Lord Denning observed in Sehmidt: "The speeches in Ridge v Baldwin show that an administrative body may, in a proper case, be bound to give a person who is affected by their decision an opportunity of making representations. It all depends on whether he has some right or interest or I would add, some legitimate expectation, of which it would not be fair to deprive him without hearing what he has to say ...." In this case certain non-national students at Hubbard College of Scientology had been given leave to enter the United Kingdom before July, 1968, initially for a period of a month. The periods had been extended to the end of August and September 1968, respectively. Applications were made on behalf of the plaintiffs to the Home Office on June 11 and July 15, 1968 for extensions of their stay until November and December 1968, to complete their studies. By letters of July 29 and 30 the Home Secretary, the defendant, rejected the applications. The plaintiff's stay was, however, extended to September 30 to let them make arrangements to leave. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and 50 other alien students of the college, claimed declarations against the defendant that his decision not to consider further similar applications for extension of stay was unlawful, void, and of no effect and the defendant was bound to consider such applications on their merit and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The court of appeal held that they had no legitimate expectation of extension and therefore no right to hearing, though revocation of their permits within the earlier granted period of permit would have been contrary to legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation referred to in, this case did not give the alien students an enforceable right to stay for the time originally permitted but an enforceable right to be heard before the decision to revoke his permit was taken: a procedural protection only. EVOLUTION IN INDIA
4 [ 1969] 2 Ch 149; (1969) 1.AllE.R. 904_._
(ii) he has received assurance from the decisionmaker that they will not be withdrawn without first giving him an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should be withdrawn. Explaining the nature and scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries^7 ,^ a three-Judge Bench of this Court had observed thus:
"The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of no arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent."
ROLE OF JUDICIARY
These are some cases in which supreme court dealt with the doctrine of legitimate expectation:
Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. It was in this context that the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" was evolved which today has become a source of substantive as well as procedural rights. But claims based on "legitimate expectation" have been held to require reliance on representations and resulting detriment to the claimant in the same way as claims based on promissory estoppel."
Referring to a large number of authorities on the question, observed that a change in policy can defeat a substantive legitimate expectation if it can be justified on "Wednesbury" reasonableness. The decision maker has the choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy. Therefore, the choice of the policy is for the decision maker and not for the Court. The legitimate substantive expectation, merely permits the Court to find out if the change in policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made.
It has been reiterated that a legitimate expectation is not the same thing as anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. It is grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the public and the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters.
9 (1999) 4 SCC 727 10 (2012) 6 SCC 204
ARTICLES USED
CASE LAWS
WEBSITES
