Published on: October 16, 2023 at 10:49 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (1973)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions. Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the view of American Jurisprudence that the Doctrine of Estoppel will not be applied against the State in its Governmental, Public or Sovereign capacity. It further held that the only exception with regard to applicability of the Doctrine of Estoppel is where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice.
37. The High Court was correct in holding that no estoppel could arise against the State in regard to abolition of post. The appellant Ramanatha Pillai knew that the post was temporary. In American Jurisprudence 2d at p. 783 para 123 it is stated “Generally, a state is not subject to an estoppel to the same extent as in an individual or a private corporation. Otherwise, it might be rendered helpless to assert its powers in government. Therefore as a general rule the doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the State in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity.
An exception however arises in the application of estoppel to the State where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice”. The estoppel alleged by the appellant Ramanatha Pillai was on the ground that he entered into an agreement and thereby changed his position to his detriment. The High Court rightly held that the Courts exclude the operation of the doctrine of estoppel, when it is found that the authority against whom estoppel is pleaded has owed a duty to the public against whom the estoppel cannot fairly operate.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra