The Hindu : Front Page : Minister’s promise can’t be enforced: court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Apr 19, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

Minister’s promise can’t be enforced: court

J. Venkatesan

Claim based merely on legitimate expectation cannot confer a right

Doctrine of legitimate expectation can apply only if decision is arbitrary
If it is a question of policy, courts cannot interfere

New Delhi: A promise or assurance made by a minister cannot be enforced as a right on the ground of “legitimate expectation,” the Supreme Court has held.

“Where a promise is made which is not supported by any consideration, the promise cannot bring action on the basis of that promise. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in the public interest where the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be applied,” said a Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam.

Writing the judgment, Justice Pasayat said: “If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of old policy, the courts cannot interfere with the decision. A claim based merely on legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right. The legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the court to find out if the change of policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made.”

The Bench said: “The courts are not very good at formulating or evaluating policy. Sometimes when the courts have intervened on policy grounds the courts’ view of the range of policies open under the statute or of what is unreasonable policy has not got public acceptance. On the contrary, curial views of policy have been subjected to stringent criticism.”

In the instant case, on a petition from the Nezone Law House, Assam, the Gauhati High Court directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to purchase law books from the petitioner as promised by its Minister. The present appeal is directed against this judgment.

The Law House claimed that it had printed 500 sets of North Eastern Regional Local Acts and Rules worth Rs. 1 crore on the assurance by the Minister that the government would place an order for purchasing them. It said the Minister forwarded a departmental note to the ministries concerned for procuring the books but did not keep his promise.

The Bench referred to the document and oral expression relied upon by the Law house and said: “When the views of several departments were involved, the question of any oral view being expressed by a Minister is really not relevant. The doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were not really applicable to the facts of this case. The point to note is that the thing is not unreasonable in the legal sense merely because the court thinks it to be unwise.” The judges said: “The decision-maker has the choice in balancing the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy. The choice of policy is for the decision-maker and not the court.”

The Bench set aside the impugned judgment.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page

News Update

Stories in this Section

Sarabjit’s hanging put off to June 1

“Nepal situation not misread”

An inconvenient truth in Chennai

International news agencies not to cover IPL

Kolkata Knight Riders outplay Bangalore Royal Challengers