Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Administrative Law
Table of Contents
ToggleIntroduction
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Administrative Law is a critical principle in administrative law that ensures fairness and justice in situations where a promise or representation made by a party (particularly by government or public authorities) induces reliance by another party.
This doctrine prevents the party making the promise from going back on it, particularly when doing so would lead to detriment or injustice for the party that has relied on it. The concept has evolved over time and has become an essential tool to check arbitrary actions by governmental bodies, ensuring that their promises are honoured when others have reasonably relied upon them.

Meaning of the Doctrine
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is based on the legal maxim “Estoppel by representation” or “Estoppel by conduct”. The basic principle is that when a party makes a representation or promise to another party, and the latter party relies on that promise to their detriment, the promisor (typically the government or a public authority in administrative law cases) is estopped or legally prohibited from denying or retracting that promise.
In simple terms, this doctrine prevents a party from resiling from a promise or representation that has been relied upon by another party. Even in the absence of a formal contract, if a party has reasonably acted on the promise, it would be unjust for the promisor to deny or change the promise.
Theoretical Foundation
Promissory estoppel is based on the equitable principle of estoppel, which prevents a party from resiling from a promise or representation that another party has relied upon to their detriment. Traditionally, estoppel operates to stop a party from denying the truth of an assumption or promise that another has relied upon. In its core, the doctrine holds that if a promise is made, and someone relies on that promise to their detriment, the promisor (in this case, the government or an administrative authority) cannot later depart from that promise.
In administrative law, this principle is applied to prevent government or public authorities from acting inconsistently with representations or promises made to the public or particular individuals, especially when the reliance upon such promises has resulted in economic or legal consequences.
Promissory Estoppel: Concept and Evolution
Origin of the Doctrine
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is rooted in English common law, with its modern development being traced back to Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1947). In this case, the English Court of Appeal acknowledged the doctrine of estoppel as a means to prevent a party from resiling from a promise, even in the absence of consideration, when another party has relied upon the promise.
Adoption of Promissory Estoppel in Indian Jurisprudence
The doctrine made its way into Indian jurisprudence through the Supreme Court’s interpretations in landmark cases. The Supreme Court of India has recognized the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in several cases where the government or a public authority made representations or promises to individuals or entities.
One of the earliest and most significant Indian decisions on this doctrine was Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. (1968), where the Supreme Court held that a promise made by the government could not be unilaterally revoked if the other party had relied on it and suffered a detriment. The Court acknowledged that public law principles could evolve to include equitable doctrines like estoppel, reflecting a departure from rigid contractual principles to more flexible and fair administration of justice.
Features of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Administrative Law
The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel has several important features, which are critical for its application:
- Clear and Unambiguous Representation or Promise: The doctrine applies when a party makes a clear, definite, and unambiguous promise or representation. This can either be an express promise (written or verbal) or an implied promise (arising from conduct or circumstances).
- Reliance on the Promise: The promisee (the party to whom the promise is made) must have relied on the promise. In administrative law, this often means that the individual, company, or entity has altered its position based on the belief that the promise would be fulfilled.
- Detriment or Change of Position: There must be actual reliance on the promise, and the promisee must have suffered some detriment or disadvantage due to the reliance. This could involve financial loss, loss of opportunity, or making an irreversible decision based on the promise.
- No Formal Contract: Promissory Estoppel operates even when there is no formal, binding contract between the parties. It is based on the equitable principle of fairness, and is applied to ensure that the promisor cannot deny their promise after it has been relied upon.
- Estoppel Against the Promisor: The promisor is legally “estopped” (i.e., prevented) from resiling or denying the promise once the promisee has acted on it to their detriment. This is particularly significant in administrative law, where promises made by government bodies or public authorities should not be arbitrarily withdrawn.
Application of Promissory Estoppel in Administrative Law
Promissory estoppel in administrative law operates in a broader context than in contract law. In administrative law, its application is primarily in the context of –
- Government policies
- Representations made by governmental agencies, and
- The consequences of reliance on such representations
Governmental Representations and Policy Changes
A government or administrative authority may make representations about policies, grants, schemes, or incentives, which individuals or businesses may rely upon. For instance, if a government promises tax incentives to a company in return for setting up a manufacturing plant in a specific location, the company may invest substantial resources based on that promise.
If, subsequently, the government changes or revokes that policy, the affected party may invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel to claim that the government should be estopped from resiling from its earlier representation.
The landmark case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) serves as a critical example. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh government was estopped from revoking the concession granted to a company under a sugar policy, as the company had relied on the promise and invested in the business accordingly. The Court emphasized that the government could not backtrack on its representations to the detriment of the company, reflecting the broader applicability of the doctrine in public law.
Judicial Review and Government Accountability
In India, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been used by the judiciary as a tool for holding the government accountable. Public authorities must act within the framework of fairness and justice, ensuring that promises or representations made are not arbitrarily rescinded. Courts have invoked the doctrine to ensure that the state or its agencies act in a manner consistent with established promises or policy guidelines, particularly where individuals or entities have relied on them.
In the case of Bhatia Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. DDA (2002), the Delhi High Court applied the principle of promissory estoppel in a housing dispute where the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had made certain representations to the housing society. The Court held that DDA was estopped from changing its stance and could not depart from its representations, particularly since the society had acted in reliance on them.
Limitations and Exceptions to Promissory Estoppel in Administrative Law
While the doctrine of promissory estoppel in Administrative Law serves as an essential tool to ensure fairness and prevent government arbitrariness, its application is not without limitations:
- No Promissory Estoppel Against Statutory or Legislative Functions: The principle of promissory estoppel does not apply where the government’s action is based on legislative or statutory mandates. If a government promise conflicts with a statutory duty, the latter prevails. The government cannot be estopped from fulfilling its legal obligations.
- No Estoppel in Cases of Fraud or Misrepresentation: Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked if the promise was made based on fraudulent representations or misstatements. The equitable nature of the doctrine requires that it be applied only in cases where there is good faith reliance on the promise.
- Temporary or Conditional Promises: The doctrine of promissory estoppel may not apply to promises that are contingent upon future events or conditions that are uncertain. The doctrine is typically invoked when the promise is clear, unambiguous, and there has been detriment suffered by the party relying on it.
- Public Interest and Policy Considerations: Promissory estoppel is a flexible doctrine and can be set aside if it is found that enforcing a promise would adversely affect public interest or cause undue hardship to the public.
Explanation of the Doctrine Through Relevant Case Laws
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Administrative Law has been shaped and reinforced by various landmark cases in India. Here are some significant rulings that explain the doctrine:
Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (1968)
- Facts:In this case, the Union of India had made a promise to the Anglo Afghan Agencies regarding the continuation of a certain agreement. The company, relying on this promise, made substantial investments and incurred expenses. However, the government later attempted to deny the promise and terminate the agreement, which led to financial loss for the company.
- Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the company, holding that the government could not resile from its promise. The Court applied the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, stating that a party (including the government) cannot go back on a promise if the other party has relied on it to their detriment. This was one of the first significant cases where the doctrine was applied to government representations, setting an important precedent for administrative law in India.
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1957)
- Facts: In this case, the government had given tax concessions to the publishers of the Express Newspapers. The newspaper company, based on the government’s promise, continued its operations and made investments. However, the government later sought to withdraw the concessions, which would have adversely affected the company’s operations.
- Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not withdraw the concessions because it would result in unfair detriment to the newspaper company, which had relied on the government’s promise. The Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied, as the government had induced the company to act upon its promise, and it was now estopped from withdrawing that promise. This case reinforced the principle that public authorities cannot act arbitrarily and must honour their representations.
Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Ltd. (1983)
- Facts: Lotus Hotels Ltd. had applied for a loan from the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (GSFC). GSFC had made an assurance in writing that the loan would be granted. The company relied on this promise and proceeded with the construction of the hotel. However, after the company had invested significant funds, GSFC reneged on its promise and refused to disburse the loan.
- Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel and ruled in favor of Lotus Hotels. The Court held that since the company had relied on the promise made by GSFC, it would be inequitable for GSFC to backtrack on its promise. The Court emphasized that public bodies and government authorities could not act arbitrarily, and once a party relied on their representation to its detriment, the government was estopped from withdrawing the promise.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja (2003)
- Facts: In this case, the government-owned Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL) had promised to provide certain facilities to a contractor for a specific period. The contractor, relying on the promise, made significant investments. However, the BCCL later reneged on the promise and sought to terminate the contract.
- Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court again applied the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, emphasizing that the government could not withdraw its promise when the other party had relied upon it. The Court held that in administrative matters, the government must fulfill its representations, especially when it has induced another party to act upon those representations.
Recent Trends and Judicial Developments
In recent years, Indian courts have been more cautious in applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel in Administrative Law in the context of government actions. Courts have stressed the need for the government to act in a way that is both predictable and in line with the expectations of fairness. However, they have also highlighted the public nature of the government’s role, recognizing that public policy considerations often require the state to make changes in its policies.
For instance, in Union of India v. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. (2005), the Supreme Court held that while the government could not backtrack on a promise made in the form of a policy concession, the doctrine could not be applied in situations where the promise was inconsistent with public interest or conflicting with the law.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Administrative Law plays a critical role in ensuring that fairness and equity prevail in the relationship between individuals and government authorities. It prevents the government from acting arbitrarily or unfairly by making promises that it later denies or retracts, especially when the other party has relied on those promises to its detriment.
Through cases like Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, and Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Ltd., the Indian judiciary has reaffirmed that government promises and representations, even in the absence of a formal contract, must be honoured when a party has relied upon them.
The application of this doctrine ensures that public authorities are held accountable for their promises, promoting justice, fairness, and transparency in administrative actions. As India continues to evolve, this doctrine remains an essential safeguard against arbitrary and unjust administrative actions.
Also, Check Out Other Topics in Administrative Law:
- Introduction and Scope of Administrative Law
- Droit Administratif
- Ombudsman in Administrative Law
- Public Corporation in Administrative Law
- Judicial Review of Administrative Action
- Reasons for Growth of Administrative Law
- Separation of Powers in Administrative Law
- Doctrine of Ultra Vires in Administrative Law
- Whistleblowing
- Nature of Administrative Law
- Red Light and Green Light Theory of Administrative Law
- Sub Delegation in Administrative Law
- Delegatus Non Potest Delegare
Explore Law Shore: law notes today and take the first step toward mastering the fundamentals of law with ease.

After Completing my LLB hons, I started writing content about legal concepts and case laws. I finally started Law Shore in 2024 with an aim to help other students and lawyers.