Neelesh Sir’s Portion

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 1

 💌 Notes from CK Thakkar

💌 Legitimate Expectation may arise

1. If there is an express promise held out or

representation made by a public authority

2. because of the existence of past practice which

the claimant can reasonably expect to continue

3. such promise or representation is clear and

unambiguous

The doctrine of Legitimate Expectations has been recently

recognized in the English as well as in the Indian Legal
System

The latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the

courts for the review of administrative actions

A person may legitimately expect to be treated in a certain

way by an administrative authority even though he has no
legal right in private law to receive such treatment.

Where a decision of an administrative authority adversely

affects legal rights of an individual, duty to act judicially is
implicit

But even in cases where there is no legal right, he may still

have legitimate expectation of receiving the benefit or
privilege.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 2

 Such expectation may arise either from express promise or
from the existence of regular practice which the applicant
can reasonably expect to continue.

In such cases, the court may protect his expectation by

invoking principles analogous to natural justice and fair play
in action.

The court may not insist on an administrative authority to

act judicially but may still insist he act fairly.

Principles of natural justice will apply in cases where there

is some right which is likely to be affected by an act of
administration

Good administration, however, demands observance of the

doctrine of reasonableness in other situations also where the
citizens may legitimately expect to be treated fairly

The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been developed

both in the context of reasonableness and in the context of
natural justice

Public Law Remedy

Well-established and operated in the domain of public law +

does not apply to private law

The government and its departments, in administering the

affairs of the country are expected to honour a consistent
code of conduct by treating all citizens fairly and equally

Every action of the state must be rational and in conformity

with Article 14 of the Constitution

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 3

 Doctrine of legitimate expectations thus gets assimilated in
the doctrine of rule of law

Legitimate Expectation and Natural Justice

Fair procedure and just treatment are the core of our

jurisprudence

Hence, where the government or an instrumentality of State

declares policy, or holds out a promise, makes a statement,
or adopts a particular code of conduct, the doctrine of
legitimate expectation operates It would be unfair on the
part of public authority to ignore policy or deviate from
practice.

It would be akin to a violation of principles of natural

justice.

Wade rightly states that the doctrine of legitimate

expectation has been developed, both in context of
reasonableness and natural justice.

Legitimate Expectation and Natural Justice

Fair procedure and just treatment are core to jurisprudence.

When the state makes promises, adopts policies, or declares

codes of conduct, the doctrine of legitimate expectation
applies.

Deviations from declared policies without justification

breach natural justice.

Wade: The doctrine connects reasonableness and natural

justice.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 4

 Legitimate Expectation and Unreasonableness

Governments must honor policies and avoid discrimination

against similarly situated individuals.

Legitimate expectation serves as both procedural and

substantive rights.

Whether an expectation is legitimate is a question of fact

evaluated in the context of larger public interest.

Legitimate Expectation and Public Policy

The government can revise, reframe, or change policies,

provided it is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Courts uphold changes in policies if justified by larger

public interest.

Case Reference: Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO

Withdrawal of tax benefits in public interest did not

breach legitimate expectation.

Legitimate Expectation and Estoppel

Though similar, legitimate expectation and estoppel are

distinct doctrines.

Legitimate expectation focuses on procedural fairness and

administrative justice.

Estoppel, however, deals with preventing parties from

reneging on representations relied upon.

Duty of the Applicant

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 5

 The applicant must establish a foundation for their claim
under the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

This doctrine grants them standing to seek judicial review.

Duty of the Authority

If the applicant satisfies the court prima facie that their

claim is well-founded, the authority must justify the action
taken against the applicant.

The onus shifts to the authority to defend its decision.

Duty of the Court

The court evaluates the applicant's request for relief based

on legitimate expectation.

Relief is not guaranteed merely because legitimate

expectation exists; public interest considerations may
override such expectations.

The court distinguishes between protecting legitimate

expectation and granting relief—these are separate issues.

Scope of Judicial Review:

1. Importance:

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is significant in

the development of judicial review law.

2. Criteria for Application:

The decision must affect a person or group by depriving

them of a benefit or advantage they:

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 6

 1. Have previously enjoyed based on the decision-
maker's permission, with a legitimate expectation
to continue unless valid reasons for withdrawal are
communicated.

2. Were assured by the decision-maker that the

benefits would not be withdrawn without providing
an opportunity to contest the withdrawal.

Consequences:

1. Granting Standing:

Legitimate expectation provides locus standi (legal

standing) to seek judicial review.

2. Authority’s Obligations:

Authorities should not act in ways that defeat legitimate

expectations without justifiable reasons.

Before denying legitimate expectations, authorities

must allow the affected person to make representations.

3. Judicial Challenges:

Claims based on legitimate expectation can be

challenged if the denial:

Is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, or violates

principles of natural justice.

Limitations:

1. Procedural Nature:

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 7

 Legitimate expectation is procedural, not substantive,
and does not guarantee rights.

2. Case Example:

Attorney General for New South Wales v. Quinn:

A stipendiary magistrate's legitimate expectation to

remain appointed was denied after the court system
was replaced by legislation.

The court ruled that providing substantive

protection to legitimate expectations could interfere
with decisions on administrative merits

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 8

 💌 Monnet Ispat Energy Ltd. v. Union of India

The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be

invoked as a substantive and enforceable right.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is founded

on the principle of reasonableness and fairness.
The doctrine arises out of principles of natural
justice and there are parallels between the
doctrine of legitimate expectation and
promissory estoppel.

Where the decision of an authority is founded in

public interest as per executive policy or law,
the court would be reluctant to interfere with
such decision by invoking the doctrine of
legitimate expec tation. The legitimate
expectation doctrine cannot be invoked to fetter
changes in administrative policy if it is in the
public interest to do so.

The legitimate expectation is different from

anticipation and an anticipation cannot amount
to an assertable expectation. Such expectation
should be justifiable, legitimate and protectable.

The protection of legitimate expectation does not

require the fulfilment of the expectation where
an overriding public interest requires otherwise.
In other words, personal benefit must give way
to public interest and the doctrine of legitimate

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 9

 expectation would not be invoked which could
block public interest for private benefit.

Other Case Laws

Indian Cases
1. Navjyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society
v. Union of India (1992)

Facts: The government changed the policy

for the allotment of flats to cooperative
housing societies, which impacted the
claimants who had based their expectations
on the previous policy.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that

individuals could challenge the
government's deviation from earlier
promises or policies if it created
legitimate expectations.

Procedural fairness must be ensured

when altering such policies.

Legitimate expectation arises when

public authorities consistently act in a
way or give specific assurances that
influence individuals to act accordingly.

2. Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu

Cattle Feed Industries (1993)

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 10

 Facts: The corporation changed its decision
regarding tenders after initially indicating
acceptance, leading to a dispute.

Judgment:

Legitimate expectation does not confer

a right but demands fairness in
administrative decisions.

The doctrine ensures the individual

receives a fair hearing if the authority
intends to alter a prior assurance.

3. National Buildings Construction Corporation

v. S. Raghunathan (1998)

Facts: Employees claimed legitimate

expectations regarding employment terms
based on a government policy that was later
changed.

Judgment:

The court emphasized balancing public

interest and individual expectations.

A legitimate expectation arises when

there is a consistent policy or
representation by the government that
individuals rely upon in good faith.

4. Madras City Wine Merchants' Association v.

State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 11

 Facts: The association challenged changes
in excise policies, claiming legitimate
expectation of consistent practices.

Judgment:

The court ruled that legitimate

expectation requires either a past
practice or a specific promise.

Desire or assumption by individuals

without explicit assurance does not give
rise to legitimate expectations.

5. Union of India v. Hindustan Development

Corporation (1993)

Facts: A government policy involving

procurement from select contractors was
challenged as breaching the legitimate
expectations of other bidders.

Judgment:

Legitimate expectation is distinct from

enforceable legal rights but can still be
reviewed for fairness.

Arbitrary or unfair denial of expectation

can be challenged under Article 14 of
the Indian Constitution.

6. State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. (2004)

Facts: Tax exemptions promised to

industries were withdrawn after businesses

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 12

 had acted on them.

Judgment:

The court held that businesses acted in

reliance on the government’s assurance,
creating legitimate expectations.

While the state can change policies,

such changes must adhere to principles
of fairness and natural justice.

English Cases
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for
the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ Case)

Facts: The UK government denied trade

union membership to GCHQ employees
without prior consultation, which had been a
longstanding practice.

Judgment:

The House of Lords established that

legitimate expectation arises when an
individual expects procedural or
substantive benefits due to past conduct
or express assurances.

However, the doctrine may be

overridden in cases involving national
security or overriding public interest.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 13

 2. Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen
Shiu (1983)

Facts: The Hong Kong government had

assured immigrants of fair consideration
before deportation but failed to deliver on
this promise.

Judgment:

The Privy Council ruled that the

individual had a legitimate expectation
based on the government’s public
promise.

The decision to deport without

following the promised procedure was
invalid.

3. R v. North and East Devon Health Authority,

ex parte Coughlan (2001)

Facts: A disabled individual was promised

lifelong care in a specific facility, but the
authority later sought to close the facility.

Judgment:

The court distinguished between

procedural and substantive
expectations.

Substantive expectations can be

enforced if the public body’s assurance

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 14

 is clear and unequivocal, and
overturning it would be unjust.

4. R v. Secretary of State for the Home

Department, ex parte Asif Mahmood Khan
(1984)

Facts: The applicant challenged the fairness

of the immigration process, claiming the
expectation of procedural fairness.

Judgment:

The court reiterated that legitimate

expectation ensures fairness in decision-
making processes.

5. R (Bibi) v. Newham London Borough Council

(2001)

Facts: Housing authorities reneged on a

promise to rehouse individuals in a
particular area.

Judgment:

Substantive legitimate expectations

arise when individuals rely on specific
representations.

However, overriding public interest may

limit the enforcement of such
expectations.

6. R v. Secretary of State for Education and

Employment, ex parte Begbie (2000)

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 15

 Facts: A policy change affecting funding for
specific programs was challenged as
violating legitimate expectations.

Judgment:

Legitimate expectation must be based

on clear and consistent assurances.

The court emphasized the limits of the

doctrine, particularly when public
policy considerations outweigh
individual claims.

Conclusion

imposes a duty to act fairly

legitimate expectations may come in various

forms and owe their existence to different
kinds of circumstances

not possible to give an exhaustive list in the

context of vast and fast expansion of
government activities.

Fundamental Principle of Law:

All powers must be exercised within

legal limits.

Administrative powers are no exception

and must align with the rule of law.

Prevention of Abuse:

Abuse of power is always possible.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 16

 Effective judicial review acts as a
safeguard against such abuse.

Traditional Theory of Judicial Review:

Courts traditionally controlled the

existence and scope of prerogative
powers.

They did not interfere with how these

powers were exercised.

Council of Civil Service Unions Case:

Marked a shift in judicial review.

Courts now review discretionary

powers based on their subject matter
rather than their source.

Judicial review varies in scope

depending on the context and case
specifics.

Limits of Judicial Review:

Judicial review is not absolute or

unlimited.

Courts cannot review administrative

acts merely because they seem "unfair"
on merits.

Overstepping into administrative

functions risks courts losing their own
legitimacy.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 17

 Notes from IP Massey

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 18

 💌 Introduction

belongs to the domain of public law and is

intended to give relief to the people when they
are not able to justify their claims on the basis of
law

though they had suffered a civil consequence

because their legitimate expectation had been
violated

The term legitimate expectation was first used by

Lord Denning

In India, the Supreme Court has developed this

doctrine in order to check the arbitrary exercise
of power by the administrative authorities

Therefore, this doctrine provides a central space

between "no claim" and a "legal claim"', wherein
a public authority can be made accountable on
the ground of an expectation which is legitimate

Example of judicial creativity but it is not extra-

legal and extra-constitutional + natural habitat
for this doctrine can be found in Article 14 of the
Constitution

the doctrine is being hailed as a fine principle of

administrative jurisprudence for reconciling
power with liberty

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 19

 Doctrine has negative and positive contents
both

Negative - Admin authority can be

prohibited from violating the legitimate
expectations of the people + if applied in a
positive manner then → Admin authority
can be compelled to fulfil the legitimate
expectations of the people

Developments in India

The importation of the doctrine of legitimate

expectation is recent.

The first reference to the doctrine is found in

State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillais

The concept of legitimate expectation has now

gained importance in administrative law as a
component of natural justice, non-arbitrariness
and the rule of law.

It aims at checking the growing abuse of

administrative power as a supplement to the
principles of natural justice, unreasonableness,
fiduciary duty of administrative authorities and
in future, perhaps, the principle of
proportionality.

Demarcating the scope of the doctrine, the court

held that legitimate expectation gives sufficient
locus standi to the applicant for fair judicial
review.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 20

 The doctrine is to be confined mostly to a right
of hearing before a decision, which results in
negativating a promise or withdrawing an
undertaking, is taken.

Though the denial of legitimate expectation is

court will not in the public a ground for
challenging an administrative action, but the
interfere unless the denial is arbitrary,
unreasonable, not interest, and inconsistent with
the principles of natural justice, or where denial
is in violation of a right.

However, it does not mean that an administrative

body cannot change its policy, so denial of
legitimate expectation can be justified only by
showing some overriding public interest.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in India [Seemeen

Muzafar’s article]

1. Concept and Definition

Legitimate Expectation is a principle in public law aimed
at curbing the arbitrary exercise of administrative powers.

It protects individuals who suffer civil consequences due to

administrative actions, even when they lack a concrete legal
right.

It is an equitable principle rather than a legally enforceable

right and is rooted in the principles of natural justice and

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 21

 rule of law.

Functions as a safeguard to ensure fairness,

reasonableness, and predictability in administrative
decision-making.

Does not guarantee outcomes but ensures that affected

parties are treated with procedural fairness (e.g., the right to
be heard).

2. Characteristics
Protects against arbitrary administrative actions by
ensuring that public authorities respect expectations that
arise from:

1. Express promises made by them.

2. Established practices that individuals have reasonably

come to rely upon.

Applies in procedural and substantive contexts to provide

safeguards against unfair treatment.

Operates within the framework of natural justice,

extending protection even where legal rights do not exist.

3. Evolution of the Doctrine

1. Origins:

First introduced by Lord Denning in Schmidt v.

Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969).

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 22

 Originated as a mechanism to hold administrative
authorities accountable for their promises and conduct.

2. Adoption in India:

Indian courts recognized the doctrine to curb the misuse

of administrative powers.

It evolved as an essential aspect of judicial review,

enabling courts to assess the fairness of decisions by
public authorities.

Linked closely with Article 14 of the Constitution of

India, which guarantees equality before the law and
prohibits arbitrariness.

4. Key Features
Procedural Fairness: Ensures that affected individuals are
given a fair hearing before decisions are made.

Substantive Fairness: Allows individuals to expect that

benefits or practices will continue unless there are valid
public interest considerations.

The expectation must be legitimate, i.e., it must be:

1. Based on clear promises or established practices.

2. Reasonable and logical under the circumstances.

Relief can be sought through writs of mandamus or

certiorari in cases of arbitrary administrative actions.

5. Judicial Perspective in India

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 23

 1. Application and Interpretation:

The doctrine is primarily procedural but can have

substantive implications where fairness demands.

Courts have frequently used this doctrine to ensure that

public authorities adhere to principles of non-
arbitrariness.

2. Important Cases:

Food Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle

Feed Industries:

Established that legitimate expectation stems from

Article 14, ensuring non-arbitrariness.

Tamil Nadu Tamil & English Medium Schools

Association v. State of TN:

Abrupt policy changes without consultation were

held to violate the doctrine.

Union of India v. Hindustan Development

Corporation:

Affirmed that legitimate expectation provides locus

standi to challenge administrative actions but does
not grant a substantive right.

3. International Jurisprudence:

Comparative insights from cases like:

Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs

(UK).

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 24

 Kio v. West (Australia): Highlighted the importance
of balancing procedural fairness with public
interest.

6. Types of Legitimate Expectation

1. Procedural Legitimate Expectation:

Relates to the expectation of fair procedures, such as a

right to be heard or consulted before decisions are
made.

Example: Denying a person a hearing before refusing to

renew a license they have previously held.

2. Substantive Legitimate Expectation:

Concerns the expectation that a benefit or practice will

continue unless overridden by public interest.

Courts require authorities to justify any deviations from

established practices or promises.

7. Essential Ingredients
To invoke the doctrine, the following must be established:

1. Existence of a Promise or Practice:

The individual must show a clear promise or

consistent practice by the public authority that gave
rise to the expectation.

2. Reasonableness:

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 25

 The expectation must be reasonable, logical, and valid
under the circumstances.

3. Opportunity for a Hearing:

Authorities must provide an opportunity to be heard

before altering a practice or withdrawing a benefit.

4. Fairness in Decision-Making:

Decisions must be free from arbitrariness and must

align with principles of natural justice.

8. Scope and Limitations

1. Scope:

Applies broadly to all administrative actions, especially

those affecting civil rights or privileges.

Extends to non-statutory actions, such as policy

changes or administrative practices.

2. Limitations:

Cannot override statutory provisions.

Does not apply in cases involving purely contractual

disputes.

Subject to public interest considerations, which can

justify deviations from legitimate expectations.

9. Article 14 and Legitimate Expectation

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 26

 Article 14 ensures equality before the law and non-
arbitrariness in state actions.

Legitimate expectation serves as a test of fairness, helping

courts evaluate whether administrative actions violate the
principles of natural justice.

Example: Inconsistent application of retirement age policies

across employees was deemed violative of Article 14 (Union
of India v. Pardasone).

10. Case Categories

1. Policy Changes:

Where established policies are changed to the detriment

of individuals relying on them (e.g., sudden withdrawal
of tax benefits).

2. Inconsistent Application:

Policies applied inconsistently across similar cases,

leading to discrimination.

3. Broken Promises:

Promises or assurances dishonored due to subsequent

policy changes or administrative decisions.

4. Arbitrary Decisions:

Decisions reversed without valid reasons, affecting

individuals who relied on earlier practices.

11. Consequences of Applying the Doctrine

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 27

 Judicial Remedies:

Invalidation of Arbitrary Actions: Courts may quash

decisions that violate legitimate expectations.

Compensation: Damages may be awarded for harm

caused by unlawful administrative actions.

Suspension of Policies: Courts may issue injunctions to

prevent unfair policy implementation.

Impact on Governance:

Encourages fairness and transparency in

administrative actions.

Balances public interest with individual rights,

ensuring that governance remains accountable and
predictable.

12. Exceptions to the Doctrine

1. Statutory Provisions:

Cannot override statutory requirements (e.g., licensing

mandates).

2. Public Interest:

Overrides individual expectations if public interest

demands (Madras City Wine Merchants' Association v.
State of Tamil Nadu).

3. Contractual Disputes:

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 28

 Does not apply to purely contractual matters (Indian
Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Karnataka Electricity Board).

4. Speculative Expectations:

Expectations based on hope rather than clear promises

are not protected.

13. Observations
The doctrine is an equitable principle, emphasizing
fairness over strict legality.

Courts use it as a tool for judicial review, ensuring

accountability in public administration.

While it provides procedural safeguards, substantive

protection is rare and contingent on public interest
considerations.

Doctrine of Proportionality

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 29

 💌 Notes

Concerned with how the decision-maker has ordered his

priorities, the very essence of decision-making consists in
the attribution of relative importance to the factors in the
case

Proportionality involves a balancing test and the necessity

test

The former scrutinises excessive and onerous penalties or

infringement of rights or interest whereas the latter takes
into account other less restrictive alternatives

Ordains that administrative measures must not be more

drastic than is necessary for attaining the desired result

If an action taken by an authority is grossly

disproportionate, the said decision is not immune from
judicial scrutiny

Apart from the fact that it is an improper and unreasonable

exercise of power, it shocks the conscience of the court and
amounts to evidence of bias and prejudice

The doctrine operates in both procedural and substantive

matters

The test of proportionality is how the decision-maker has

ordered his priorities - the attribution of relative importance
to the factors in the case before him

Not so much the correctness of the decision that is called

into question but the method to reach such a decision

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 30

 It is clear that the principles of reasonableness and
proportionality cover a great deal of common ground

The doctrine of proportionality - as a part of judicial review

ensures that a decision otherwise within the province of
administrative authority must not be arbitrary, irrational or
unreasonable

Though in judicial review the court is not concerned with

the correctness of the decision but how the decision is taken,
the decision-making process involves attributing relative
importance to various aspects of the case and the doctrine of
proportionality enters.

Cases

1. Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v.

Workman (1965)
Facts: Workers treated a particular day as a holiday and
remained absent from duty. The employer dismissed them
from service.

Tribunal’s Decision: The Industrial Tribunal set aside the

dismissal, considering it disproportionate.

Supreme Court: Upheld the tribunal's decision, observing

that the absence could have been treated as leave without
pay or penalized with a fine or warning. The extreme
punishment of dismissing the entire permanent staff was
deemed unreasonable and disproportionate.

2. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987)

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 31

 Facts: An Army officer disobeyed a lawful command from
his superior by refusing to eat food offered to him. He was
court-martialed, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one
year, dismissed from service, and declared unfit for future
employment.

Issue: Whether the punishment was disproportionate to the

offense.

Supreme Court: Held the punishment to be grossly

disproportionate, shocking the conscience of the court. It
emphasized that penalties must suit the offense and the
offender, and excessive punishments are evidence of bias.
The court invoked the doctrine of proportionality to ensure
fairness in judicial review.

3. Sardar Singh v. Union of India (1991)

Facts: A soldier purchased 11 bottles of rum from the army
canteen while on leave, exceeding his entitlement of 4
bottles. He was court-martialed, sentenced to three months'
rigorous imprisonment, and dismissed from service.

Supreme Court: Found the punishment arbitrary and

excessively harsh. The court struck down the dismissal,
reiterating the principle that penalties must align with the
severity of the offense.

4. Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989)

Facts: An employee was found guilty of preparing false pay
bills and a bogus identity card. While two others involved

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 32

 received minor penalties, the petitioner, considered the
mastermind, was dismissed from service. The Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) reduced the penalty to align
with the punishment imposed on the others.

Supreme Court: Overturned the CAT’s decision, holding

that tribunals should not substitute their discretion for that of
competent authorities unless the penalty is mala fide,
excessive, or unsupported by evidence. The court
highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in such
cases and endorsed the view that proportionality should not
undermine the discretion of the authority.

5. Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997)

Facts: An employee’s misconduct led to the withholding of
50% of his pension and gratuity. The CAT reduced the
penalty, deeming it excessive.

Supreme Court: Reinstated the original penalty,

emphasizing that judicial review should respect
administrative discretion unless penalties are manifestly
unreasonable, irrational, or disproportionate. The court
clarified that proportionality involves examining the method
of decision-making rather than substituting the decision
itself.

6. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank

v. Employees Association (2007)

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 33

 Facts: Employees went on an illegal strike and prevented
others from discharging their duties. The employer imposed
a penalty of stoppage of increments.

Supreme Court: Upheld the penalty, ruling that the actions

of the employees amounted to serious misconduct. The
punishment was deemed proportionate to the charges proved
against them.

Additional Notes

could be found in the ancient Greek dictum, pan metron ariston

First, under the municipal law, it refers to a doctrine which suggests that
a punishment afforded to a guilty should match the offence

second one is under International Humanitarian Law, where the

doctrine refers to the use of legal force in armed conflict

Accordingly, proportionality includes three conditions, viz.,

i. The means which is applied by public authorities should be available
to achieve the aims and should be effective or in other words, suitable.
(ii) The means should be necessary to realise the aims and should not be
more than what is necessary to fulfill the aim as showed in the laws.
(iii) The means which causes a burden for individuals should be
proportionate to the aim.

the principle of proportionality envisages that an administrative action

could be quashed by a reviewing Court, if the action was
disproportionate to the mischief which was sought to be remedied

In other words, it is the duty of the administration

to choose its actions so as to safeguard the rights of citizens and to

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 34

 ensure a fair balance between individual rights and public interest.

Proportionality as a legal test is capable of being more precise than a

reasonableness test, besides requiring a more intrusive review of a
decision made by a public authority by which the Courts have to assess
the 'balance or equation' struck by the decision-maker.

Juristic thought has moved in favour of proportionality as a correct test

for judicial review as against the Wednesbury principle

Wednesbury Principle

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 35

 💌 if an administrative action is unreasonable or arbitrary from
the perspective of a reasonable authority

a reasonable authority would not make a similar decision

extremely arbitrary and subjective

The doctrine of Reasonableness→ established through the

Wednesbury principle.

Although the Doctrine of Proportionality has been included

under Wednesbury's Principle, the test of reasonableness has
been subjected to higher scrutiny.

To apply this doctrine, the decision must be reasonable and

must strike a balance between the benefits and drawbacks of
the outcome achieved.

This sets out the standard of reasonableness to be followed

by public bodies in their decisions.

It provides a two-step test of reasonability and a reasonable

authority would not have taken the same decisions + only
applicable in extreme situations and the decisions are
patently arbitrary and unjust

The issue herein becomes that the

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 36

 💌 Associated Provincial Pictures Houses v.
Wednesbury Corporation
Facts

Sunday Entertainment Act, 1932 - established

the authority of Wednesbury Corporation which
was allowed to issue licenses in relation to the
entertainment establishments for their operation
on Sundays

Authority - can determine the terms and

conditions of the license + subject to such
conditions as the authority thinks fit to impose

Condition imposed - No child below the age of

15 years is to be permitted inside the
entertainment establishments either with or
without parents [Blanket ban on the
introduction of the individuals only for
sunday]

Cinema Complex challenged the condition on

the grounds the aforementioned the condition is
unreasonable and ultra vires the authority of
the organisation.

Held

This condition was upheld and state the age limit

is within the power of the authority for the
imposition of the condition.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 37

 Statute is giving unfettered & unlimited powers
to the authority + no appellate authority
established or provided within the statute [no
authority or process within the statute]

Justice Greene - The decision is unreasonable in

the authority.

A court may interfere with the discretionary

authority if and only if they have taken matters
they ought not to take into account which they
have not taken account, if it has ignored a
relevant material which it should have taken into
consideration or it is so absurd that no sensible
person could ever have reached to it.

If the decision has come to a fact — they have

come to a conclusion that no reasonable
authority could have come to the decision.

The caveat laid down in the judgment an

individual may find an administrative decision to
be unreasonable but that is not enough for the
court to strike down the administrative action.

It is only in those extreme and limited cases of

unreasonableness where no reasonable person
finds this decision reasonable, this wednesbury
principle permits the court to interfere with the
decision of the administrative body.

Neelesh Sir’s Portion 38