Abstract

The "doctrine of legitimate expectation" is a pivotal concept in administrative law signifying protection of trust. This doctrine plays a crucial role in connecting the rights of individuals and organizations with the powers of public authorities. It is based on the fundamental principle that when individuals have a reasonable expectation that public authorities will act fairly and follow established rules and procedures, such expectation even when it doesn’t give rise to any legal right shouldn’t be violated. By upholding this principle, the doctrine serves as an important protection against arbitrary and unfair administrative actions, ensuring that government decisions are predictable and consistent, and promoting trust among citizens. In democratic nations, the separation of powers among the government's branches is considered a fundamental rule. The executive branch, which has been granted substantial discretionary authority, is responsible for creating rules and regulations to effectively govern the country. To prevent any potential abuse of this authority and safeguard the rights of citizens from arbitrary actions, the "doctrine of legitimate expectation" becomes relevant. It is the duty of public authorities to carry out their responsibilities fairly and without any arbitrary behaviour. This paper aims to thoroughly examine this doctrine, comparing its application and impact in English and Indian administrative law. The author intends to illuminate the evolution and improvement of this doctrine through judicial decisions, highlighting its global importance in administrative justice systems.

Keywords