– The doctrine of “ Legitimate Expectation” was firstly discussed in the Indian arena in the case of State of Kerala Vs. K.G.Madhavan Pillai (1988) 4 SCC 669 , In this case the government had issued a sanction to the respondents to open a new aided school and to upgrade the existing ones. However after 15 days , a direction was issued to keep sanction in abeyance . This action was challenged on the ground that the same violated the principles of natural justice.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the sanction order created legitimate expectation in the respondents which was violated by the second order as the same was without following the principles of natural justice which is sufficient to vitiate the administrative order.
This doctrine was applied in another case of The Schedule Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association Vs. State of Karnataka (1991) 2SCC 604 . In this case the government had issued a notification notifying the areas where slum scheme would be introduced . However , the notification was subsequently amends and some areas earlier included were left out.
The court held that when a notification is made rescinding the earlier notification without hearing the affected parties, it is clear violation of the principle of natural justice.
In GNCT of Delhi Vs. Naresh Kumar 175 (2010) The Delhi High Court summarized the legal position of Legitimate Expectation-
Firstly- Mere reasonable or Legitimate Expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right but failure to consider and give due weightage to it may render decision arbitrary.
Secondly- Legitimate Expectation may arise if (a) there is an express promise given by a public authority (b) Because of acceptance of a regular practice , a claimant can reasonably expert it to continue and (c) Such expectation may be reasonable .
Thirdly- For Legitimate Expectation to arise, the decision of administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which he had in the past been permitted, by the decision maker, to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue, until some rational grounds for withdrawing it have been communicated to him.
Fourthly- If the authority proposes to defeat a person’s legitimate expectation, it should afford him an opportunity to make a representation in the matter .
Fifthly-The doctrine 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.
- Circumstances for the formation of Legitimate Expectation- In case of Madras city wine merchants Vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 5 SCC 509
If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power of violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles.” (Emphasis supplied) For the above it is clear that legitimate expectation may arise –
a) if there is an express promise given by a public authority; or
(b) because of the existence of a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue ;
(c) Such an expectation must be reasonable.
However, if there is a change in policy or in public interest the position is altered by a rule or legislation, no question of legitimate expectation would arise .
In recent case K.Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India, (2025) 9 SCC 722 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1513 at page 738, Hon’ble Apex Court held that
- However, it is equally well settled that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override an express provision of law or the Constitution. It must be borne in mind that the expectation must be legitimate, in the sense that it is not only reasonable but also legally sustainable within the structure of the governing statute or constitutional scheme. In the event of any conflict between an expectation and the existing legal framework, the expectation has to run hand in hand with the legal intent and not against it. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is not a rigid rule and must be conceded where a superseding public interest or a statutory or constitutional bar exists. Thus, while legitimate expectation may guide how discretionary powers are exercised, it cannot be invoked to compel an authority to act contrary to a binding legal or constitutional command.
-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 .