Doctrine of legitimate expectation in Bangladesh
🔹 What is the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation?
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of administrative law that protects individuals from arbitrary, capricious, or unfair decisions by public authorities. It arises when:
A public authority has made a promise or consistent past practice.
An individual has relied on that promise or practice.
The authority's action defeats the individual's expectation unfairly.
The expectation may be:
Procedural: Expecting to be heard before a decision is made.
Substantive: Expecting a certain benefit or outcome (though more controversial).
🔹 Legal Basis in Bangladesh
While the Constitution of Bangladesh does not explicitly mention "legitimate expectation," it flows from:
Article 27: Equality before law.
Article 31: Protection of the law and right to be treated in accordance with law.
Article 102: Judicial review powers of the High Court Division.
Bangladeshi courts have adopted this doctrine from UK common law, particularly from cases like Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (the GCHQ case), and developed it within local jurisprudence.
🔹 Leading Bangladeshi Cases
⚖️ Case 1: Ekushey Television Ltd. v. Bangladesh (2002)
(52 DLR [AD] 177)
Facts:
Ekushey Television (ETV) was granted a broadcasting license after due process. Later, the license was cancelled without giving the company a proper hearing.
Issue:
Did the cancellation violate legitimate expectation?
Holding:
The Appellate Division recognized that ETV had a legitimate expectation of being heard before the cancellation of its license, as per procedural fairness and Article 31.
Significance:
Established procedural legitimate expectation in Bangladesh.
Highlighted the link between expectation and natural justice.
Reinforced the requirement of fair hearing before adverse action.
⚖️ Case 2: Md. Shamsul Huda v. Bangladesh (2003)
(55 DLR [HCD] 246)
Facts:
A government employee was transferred repeatedly despite assurances and circulars on minimum tenure in a post.
Issue:
Can frequent transfers violate legitimate expectation?
Holding:
The High Court Division held that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to remain in post for a minimum tenure as per the existing government policy.
Significance:
Recognized legitimate expectation from consistent administrative practice.
Shows application of the doctrine in civil service matters.
Emphasizes need for non-arbitrariness in administrative discretion.
⚖️ Case 3: Aftabuddin v. Bangladesh (2004)
(56 DLR [HCD] 113)
Facts:
Petitioner applied for a petrol pump license. After completing all formalities and receiving verbal assurances, the license was denied without clear reasoning.
Issue:
Was there a breach of legitimate expectation?
Holding:
The court held the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the license would be granted, especially since all formalities were completed and assurances made.
Significance:
Expanded the scope to substantive legitimate expectation.
Administrative authorities must act in good faith and fairness.
Discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily.
⚖️ Case 4: Abdul Jalil v. Bangladesh (2006)
(58 DLR [HCD] 397)
Facts:
A business license was revoked suddenly, despite the licensee’s past good record and reliance on prior renewals.
Issue:
Was the revocation a violation of legitimate expectation?
Holding:
The court found that the licensee had a reasonable and legitimate expectation of renewal based on past consistent renewals, and revocation without notice violated principles of fairness.
Significance:
Reinforces that expectation arises from consistent past conduct.
Government decisions must be predictable and fair.
Revocation of a license must follow due process.
⚖️ Case 5: Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury v. Bangladesh (2008)
(60 DLR [HCD] 660)
Facts:
Gonoshasthaya Kendra’s customs benefits and import tax exemptions were suddenly withdrawn, despite having enjoyed them for years under government policy.
Issue:
Can withdrawal of a long-standing benefit violate legitimate expectation?
Holding:
The High Court held that abrupt withdrawal of the benefit without consultation or transitional measures breached legitimate expectation.
Significance:
Confirms that longstanding public policies can create legitimate expectation.
Protects individuals from sudden policy reversals.
Encourages transparency and consultation in policy changes.
⚖️ Case 6: Rashid Ahmad v. Bangladesh Bank (2011)
(63 DLR [HCD] 156)
Facts:
An applicant was on a waiting list for recruitment and was informed he would be appointed soon. Later, the authority changed the recruitment policy without informing the candidates.
Issue:
Did the petitioner have a legitimate expectation to be recruited?
Holding:
The court held the petitioner had a legitimate expectation based on express representations and was entitled to procedural fairness before the change.
Significance:
Demonstrates that expectation can arise from official representations.
Authorities must act transparently in recruitment and selection processes.
Policy changes should not prejudice existing expectations unfairly.
🔹 Key Legal Principles from Bangladeshi Cases
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Procedural Expectation | Arises when a person expects to be heard or consulted before a decision is made. |
| Substantive Expectation | Arises when a person expects to receive a benefit or decision based on past assurances or policies. |
| Past Practice or Policy | Repeated past actions by the authority can create a legitimate expectation of continuity. |
| Representation by Authority | Clear statements or promises from officials can give rise to legitimate expectation. |
| Judicial Review | Courts can quash decisions violating legitimate expectations for being arbitrary or unfair. |
| Limits | Legitimate expectation does not override statutory powers or public interest, but it can restrict unfair exercise of discretion. |
🔹 Conditions for Applying the Doctrine in Bangladesh
The following must be established:
Clear and unambiguous representation by the public authority.
Reliance by the individual on that representation.
Unfair or arbitrary departure from the expected action or procedure.
No overriding public interest justifying the departure.
🔹 Limits of the Doctrine
Cannot be used to enforce unlawful promises.
Cannot override express statutory provisions.
Does not guarantee a specific outcome, only fairness.
Public interest may justify departing from an established expectation.
🔚 Conclusion
The doctrine of legitimate expectation in Bangladesh plays a critical role in protecting individuals from arbitrary administrative actions, ensuring fairness, transparency, and consistency in governance. Though rooted in common law, it is now well-established in Bangladeshi jurisprudence and closely tied to constitutional guarantees of equality and due process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments