INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution gives the State the power to run the country and create policies and regulations. These powers are accompanied by the responsibility to uphold the rule of law and to act with justice and fairness. The principle of contractual liability for the State was developed to enforce this accountability. The code of promissory estoppel upholds this principle.

DOCTRINE PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

The State cannot breach its obligations under a legal principle called promissory estoppel. The State cannot breach a promise it made. This concept is based on justice and fairness. It is used to stop the State from acting in an unfair or unjust manner.

Contrary to contract law and promissory estoppel, it requires consideration to execute a promise. Consideration refers to a legal concept in which each party must receive something in return for their promise. Contrary to promissory estoppel, which allows a promise not to be fulfilled to be enforced, it does not require any consideration.

APPLICATION TO DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL TO STATE LIABILITY

State liability is the responsibility of the State to compensate individuals who its actions or inactions have injured. Constructive liability refers to the State’s responsibility for its promises, even if they are not enforceable by contract law.

India’s common use of the promissory isoppel to hold the State accountable for its actions is a strong indication. If the State has made a clear, unambiguous promise to a private person and the private party relies on that promise to its disadvantage, the doctrine applies. It is essential to realize that the principle will not apply to every situation.

In India, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has been used in many contexts. This includes cases involving licenses, services provision, and permits issuance. These cases have seen the State held accountable by the courts and ordered to compensate the private parties for any losses it caused.

EVOLUTION DOCTRINE IN INDIA

The doctrine of promissory isoppel has been used in several high-profile Indian cases. In these cases, the State was held responsible for any promises it made to individuals or groups. M.C. Mehta, Union of India. The Supreme Court of India used the doctrine of promissory esteoppel to hold the State responsible for its promise of compensation to victims of the toxic gas leakage in Bhopal.

The case of Union of India against Kishorilal also addressed the use of the promissory esteoppel theory. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State must uphold its obligations and cannot contest the legitimacy of a contract with private entities. This ruling opened the door to the application of the promissory estoppel doctrine in India.

Since then, the courts have used the doctrine to hold the State responsible for its actions. The doctrine of promissory isoppel has been used by courts in landmark cases to hold the State responsible for its promises and order it to compensate the private parties for any losses resulting from its failure to keep them.

One example of such a landmark case is the case Maharashtra State Electricity Board against Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. The Supreme Court ruled that the State was liable for compensating a private party for any losses it caused by its failure to fulfill a promise. This case further strengthened the principle of promissory esteoppel in India. It made it clear that the State is bound by its promises, and cannot renege on them.

BENEFITS FROM THE DOCTRINE

In India’s legal system, the doctrine of promissory isoppel has several key functions. It serves two purposes. First it checks the State’s power and ensures that the State is accountable for its actions. This is especially important in democratic systems where the State must be held responsible for its actions and decisions.

The second,the doctrine o promissory estoppel makes sure that the State acts fairly and in accordance with law. This is particularly important in India, where the State is the largest supplier of goods and services and its decisions significantly impact a large number. Promissory estoppel is a way to ensure that the State acts according to the principles of fairness and equity.

Third, The doctrine of promissory isoppel strengthens the rule of the law. It guarantees that the State will keep its promises and can’t be reneged on them. This ensures stability and predictability in the legal system, and encourages trust in the State’s actions.

The doctrine of promissory isoppel allows individuals to claim compensation for any losses they have suffered due to the State’s inability to fulfill its promises. This is especially important when the State’s actions cause significant harm to individuals and businesses.

CRITICISM of THE DOCTRINE

Although the doctrine of promissory isoppel has many important functions within the Indian legal system, it does have its critics. The doctrine is often criticized for:

Clarity needs to be improved: It can be hard to apply the promissory esteoppel in practice because it depends on subjective factors like the parties’ intent and how much trust they place on the promise. This lack of clarity can lead to confusion in the implementation and inconsistent results.

Limited Application: The application of the promissory isoppel doctrine is restricted to cases in which the State has made clear and unambiguous promises to a private party. The doctrine might only apply in some instances where the State has broken its promises, or if the promise needs to be clarified or more specific.

Balancing Interests The doctrine of promissory isoppel requires that there be a balance of the interests of the State and private party. This is difficult to do in practice because the courts must decide whether the interests of the State outweigh those of the private party. When the doctrine is applied, it can lead to unpredictable outcomes and uncertainty.

Invasion on State Powers : The State’s application of the doctrines of promissory estoppel could be an intrusion on its powers. Critics argue that the doctrine could limit the State’s ability to make decisions and govern in the public interest.

Absence of Consideration The doctrine of promissory isoppel doesn’t require consideration like contract law. This could lead to situations in which the State can be held responsible for its promises even if it didn’t receive any value in return. This could be unfair for the State and may lead to problems in determining its liability.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of promissory isoppel plays an important role in the enforcement of the principle of contractual responsibility of the State of India. This doctrine is a safeguard against the State’s power, encourages fairness, justice, and strengthens the rule of the law. India has accepted the use of promissory estoppel, and it has been used in many contexts to hold the State accountable for its actions. It has many benefits and is an important tool to ensure that the State acts according to the principles of fairness and equity.

However, the application of promissory isoppel has its limitations. It is, however, subject to the principle and policy of public policy. The doctrine may not be used in situations that would harm the public interest. The doctrine cannot be applied to cases in which the State has acted in bad faith or fraudulently.

Despite these limitations, the doctrine of promissory isoppel continues to be an important tool in holding the State accountable for its actions. It allows individuals and businesses to seek compensation for any losses they have suffered due to the State’s failures to fulfill its promises. Additionally, it strengthens the rule of law by ensuring that the State is held accountable for its actions and promises. The doctrine of promissory isoppel promotes fairness, justice and accountability in India’s legal system.