Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel [UPSC Notes]

The Supreme Court rejected the petitions that challenged the Agnipath recruitment scheme for the armed forces. In this article, you can read all about this SC ruling and the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the IAS exam polity and governance segment.

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from going back on a promise that they made, even if the promise was not supported by a contract.

• This means that if someone makes a promise to another person and the other person relies on that promise, the person who made the promise cannot later renege on it.
• Promissory estoppel is often used in contract law cases where one party relies on the promise of another party to their detriment.
• The principle has been recognized by courts in many countries, including India, and can be used to enforce promises that would otherwise not be legally binding.

Read more judicial doctrines in the linked article.

Criteria for determining the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel:

• The Supreme Court, in its ruling on Chhaganlal Keshavalal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai in 1981, provided a set of criteria for determining the applicability of the doctrine and it includes,
  1. A clear and unambiguous promise: This means that the promise made by the promisor must be specific and not open to interpretation.
  2. In order for the plaintiff (the person who is making the claim) to make a claim, they need to have reasonably relied on the promise, meaning the promisee took action based on the promisor’s commitment.
  3. For a plaintiff to have a valid claim, the promise must have experienced some form of loss by depending on the statement given by the promisor.

How is Promissory Estoppel related to Agnipath Case?

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold the Agnipath scheme for armed forces recruitment while dismissing the petitions challenging it.

• Argument by the petitioner:
  • The petitioner challenging the Delhi High Court verdict on the Agnipath Scheme argued that the Government had put up a shortlist of candidates (as part of the recruitment process followed prior to the Agnipath scheme) for the recruitment to Army and Air Force. And by putting up the shortlist, the government essentially made a promise to these candidates that they would be selected.
    • Candidates who were shortlisted for the job refused other job offers in CRPF, BSF, etc., based on the expectation that they would be selected for the Army or the Air Force.
  • Therefore, if the government goes back on its promise and does not select these candidates, it must compensate the candidates for their loss, as the candidates acted based on the government’s promise.

• Supreme Court verdict on Agnipath Scheme:

• • The Chief Justice of India (CJI) rejected the argument presented by the petitioner and highlighted that the principle of “promissory estoppel” is always subject to the larger public interest.
  • The highest court noted that the principle of promissory estoppel, typically used in contractual disputes, is not applicable to this case as it concerns public employment. As a result, there is no possibility of utilizing this principle in this specific circumstance.

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel [UPSC Notes]:- Download PDF Here