Promissory Estoppel After Article 14: Rethinking Governmental Promises In Indian Public Law
- IJLLR Journal
- 6 days ago
- 1 min read
Somya Kansal, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University
ABSTRACT
Promissory estoppel entered Indian public law at a time when constitutional law lacked adequate tools for addressing unfair governmental conduct. Decisions such as Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh established that governmental promises capable of inducing reliance could, in appropriate circumstances, be enforced against the State. Since then, however, Indian public law has undergone significant constitutional transformation. Article 14 has evolved into a broad guarantee against arbitrariness, while the doctrine of legitimate expectation increasingly protects expectations created by public authorities. This article argues that these developments have substantially narrowed the space that promissory estoppel once occupied. Although the doctrine continues to play an important role in protecting reliance, its independent justification has become increasingly difficult to distinguish from broader constitutional principles governing fairness and governmental accountability. It is argued that the continued coexistence of promissory estoppel, Article 14 and legitimate expectation has created unnecessary doctrinal overlap, making greater conceptual clarity necessary in determining the legal framework applicable to governmental promises.
Keywords: Promissory Estoppel; Article 14; Legitimate Expectation; Governmental Promises; Administrative Law; Constitutional Law.
