The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Administrative Law: Scope Evolution and Judicial Trends

ABSTRACT

Can a citizen challenge a government decision not because it violates a legal right but because it affects the promise and practice that they relied upon? The doctrine of legitimate expectation answers to this question. This doctrine serves as the central concept of public law, aiming to ensure governmental fairness and non-arbitrariness in the administration of justice. Dissatisfied expectation is brought to the fore when a public shape, by its practice, policy statements, or expressed promises, convinces an ordinary man that a course or benefit will be kept up and followed. It is more a principle of natural justice than a legal right, but one which offers procedural protection. This paper addresses several key issues: the extent to which administrative acts in practice give rise to legitimate expectations, the historical evolution of this concept, and the current trends among judges in their interpretation of it. The Indian courts acknowledge both procedural and substantive legitimate expectations, but the latter is generally upheld only when procedural fairness demands it. The paper concludes that while aggrieved individuals do not always enjoy enforceable rights, the system remains a good shield against arbitrariness; it promotes responsibility and also helps to ensure trust in public administration.