ESTOPPEL AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Estoppel is a rule of evidence that prevents a party from denying a fact which they have previously asserted. The doctrine of legitimate expectation is closely related to the principle of estoppel, as both doctrines are based upon clear and unambiguous promises. Methods/Statistical Analysis: The present research work will primarily adopt a doctrinal analysis methodology, relying on theoretical sources. The theoretical work will focus on the administrative actions of public bodies, their policies, and the Constitutional, Legislative, Executive, and judicial control of administrative actions through the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Material will be collected from various disciplines of Administrative and Constitutional law, and the research will extensively utilize different journals, reviews, and national & international judicial pronouncements. Findings: Legitimate expectation holds an important place in the realm of administrative law, representing an integral component of the rule of law, which aims to prevent arbitrary exercise of power. Judicial interpretation in numerous cases has safeguarded against administrative discretion by recognizing legitimate expectations held by the public. While judicial intervention in policy framing by the executive is not expected, it is essential to uphold the doctrine of legitimate expectation vested in the people.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
IJCERT Policy:
The published work presented in this paper is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. This means that the content of this paper can be shared, copied, and redistributed in any medium or format, as long as the original author is properly attributed. Additionally, any derivative works based on this paper must also be licensed under the same terms. This licensing agreement allows for broad dissemination and use of the work while maintaining the author's rights and recognition.
By submitting this paper to IJCERT, the author(s) agree to these licensing terms and confirm that the work is original and does not infringe on any third-party copyright or intellectual property rights.
References
Saharay, H. K. (Ed.). (2006). M. Monir’s Law of Evidence, Volume 2, 1863.
Field, C. D. (Revised by Gopats Chaturvedi). (2007). C. D. Field’s Law of Evidence in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Ceylon, Malaysia and Singapore, Volume 5, 4249 (12th Edition).
Lal, B. (2004). The Law of Evidence, 375.
(1851) 1 SIM (N.3.) 205 at 207 quoted in Browne, D. (Ed.). (1933). Ashburner’s Principles of Equity, 445.
Wade, H. W. R. (1988). Administrative Law, 64.
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., (2002) 2 SCC 188 at 201.
Available at: http://www.cili.in/article/viewFile/1544/1130 accessed on February 16, 2009.
ILR 5 Cal 669.
ILR 29 Bom 580; (1904) 29 Bom 580.
Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1880129/ accessed on May 2, 2016.
AIR 1968 SC 718.
Id. at 718.
AIR 1954 Cal 151.
Id. at 156.
Hira Industries Ltd. v. State of C.G. and Ors., AIR 2007 Chh 7 at 17.
(1969) 1 All ER 904.
Available at: http://www.supremeCourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2009/Judicial_Review_of_Administrative_Action at 8 accessed on August 24, 2009.
Forsyth, C. F. (1988). “The Provenance and Protection of Legitimate Expectations”, The Cambridge Law Journal, 47(2), 238-260.
Maripe, B. (1998). “Legitimate Expectations and the Right to a Hearing: Lessons from the George Arbi Case”, Journal of African Law, 42(1), 94-100.
Civil Appeal No. 15/93 (unreported).
Maripe, B. (1998). Supra note 80 at 96-97.
(1985) AC 375: (1985) AC 374 (408-409).
(1990) 170 CLR 1.
Ikhariale, M. A. (2001). “The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations: Prospects and Problems in Constitutional Litigation in South Africa”, Journal of African Law, 45(1), 1-12.
Available at: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-similarities-and-differences-between-the-doctrine-of-legitimate-expectation-and-the-doctrine-of-estoppel accessed on November 18, 2015.
R (Bibi) v. Newham, LBC (2002) 1 WLR 237 at 55 available at supra note 4 at 6.
Councils of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Services, (1984) 3 All ER 935 cited from Navjyoti Co-Group Housing Society v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 155 at 165.
AIR 1993 SC 155.
Id. at 155.
Haoucher v. Min., (1991) L.R.C. (Const.) 819 (836’) – Australia quoted in Basu, D. D. (1994). Constitutional Remedies and Writs, 367.
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 at 66.
MANU/SC/0392/2003.
MANU/SC/0219/1994.
Supra note 31.
Id. at 223.
AIR 1999 SC 1801.
Id. at 1801-1802.
(1979) 2 SCC 409.
Id. at 452.
(1998) 2 SCC 502.
Id. at 509.