Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the court. However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The Government can change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision which is contrary to law.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193, decided on January 20, 2011, hereafter ‘Shree Sidhbali Steels’].
The decision in Shree Sidhbali Steels carves out the ‘public interest’ exception in cases of promissory estoppel against Government. To which kind of cases have courts routinely applied this exception in favour of Governments?
- Fiscal matters
- Fiscal matters
- Labour matters
- All of the above.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The courts have commonly applied the public interest exception in fiscal matters,
allowing the government to retract from promises when public welfare and financial stability
are at stake.
The correct option is (A): Fiscal matters
Which of the following is a landmark decision governing the law on promissory estoppel against Governments?
- Sarat Chander Dey v. Gopal Chander Laha, (1892) 19 IA 203
- Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409
- Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, [1892] EWCA Civ 1
- Tej Bhan Madan v. II Additional District Judge and Others, (1988) 3 SCC 137
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. is a landmark
decision on promissory estoppel, setting a precedent for holding governments accountable to
their promises under certain conditions.
The correct option is (B): Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1979) 2 SCC 409
Which of the following statements reflect the correct position of law for promissory estoppel against Governments?
- Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, provided that there is consideration for the promise and the promise is recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution
- Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution
- Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, provided that there is consideration for the promise, but notwithstanding that the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution
- Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise, but provided that the promise is recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct position of law is that the government can be held to its promises under
promissory estoppel, even without formal consideration or a formal contract, as long as it
serves justice and is not contrary to law.
The correct option is (B): Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution
Which of the following statements is accurate in light of the passage?
- The doctrine of promissory estoppel stands diluted where the Government claims that it is in the public interest to go back on its promise or actions
- The doctrine of promissory estoppel overrides any purported claims of public interest by the Government
- Permitting a public interest exception is against the interests of justice, equity and good conscience as it is a self-serving claim for the Government.
- Both (B) and (C).
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The doctrine of promissory estoppel may allow the government to withdraw its
promise if it is in the public interest, recognizing that public welfare can take precedence over
individual claims.
The correct option is (A): The doctrine of promissory estoppel stands diluted where the Government claims that it is in the public interest to go back on its promise or actions
Which of the following statements does not reflect the correct position of law?
- Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked so as to defeat the law
- Even if the representation is made by the Government itself, but it goes against the law, estoppel can be invoked to defeat the law
- If all conditions of promissory estoppel are met, a challenge can still be made to the vires of the law
- None of the above.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat statutory provisions or laws, even
if the representation is made by the government. The doctrine is subordinate to existing law.
The correct option is (B): Even if the representation is made by the Government itself, but it goes against the law, estoppel can be invoked to defeat the law
Top Questions on Contract Law
- Distinction between the ‘sale’ and ‘agreement to sell’ is necessary to determine
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- Under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a court can enforce specific performance of a contract when ____.
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- The remedy of ‘rescission of a contract’ is available under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when the contract is ____.
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- A suit for ‘rectification of instruments’ can be filed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when instrument ____.
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
- The standard of care to be taken by a bailee for the goods bailed is same as
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Contract Law
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts
Today, in the year 2025, we have been experiencing the drastic consequences of large scale destruction of environment on human lives in the capital city of our country and in many other cities. At least for a span of two months every year, the residents of Delhi suffocate due to air pollution. The AQI level is either dangerous or very dangerous. They suffer in their health. The other leading cities are not far behind. The air and water pollution in the cities is ever increasing. Therefore, coming out with measures such as the 2021 Official Memorandum is violative of fundamental rights of all persons guaranteed under Article 21 to live in a pollution free environment. It also infringes the right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The 2021 OM talks about the concept of development. Can there be development at the cost of environment? Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development. Therefore, going out of the way by issuing such OMs to protect those who have caused harm to the environment has to be deprecated by the Courts which are under a constitutional and statutory mandate to uphold the fundamental right under Article 21 and to protect the environment. In fact, the Courts should comedown heavily on such attempts. As stated earlier, the 2021 OM deals with project proponents who were fully aware of the EIA notification and who have taken conscious risk to flout the EIA notification and go ahead with the construction/continuation/expansion of projects. They have shown scant respect to the law and their duty to protect the environment. Apart from violation of Article 21, such action is completely arbitrary which is violative article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of the 1986 Act and the EIA notification.
(Extracted with edits from Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 718)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Environmental Law
With the Paris Agreement, countries established an enhanced transparency frame work (ETF). Under ETF, starting in 2024, countries will report transparently on actions taken and progress in climate change mitigation, adaptation measures and support provided or received. It also provides for international procedures for the review of the submitted reports.
The information gathered through the ETF will feed into the Global stocktake which will assess the collective progress towards the long-term climate goals. This will lead to recommendations for countries to set more ambitious plans in the next round.
Although climate change action needs to be massively increased to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force have already sparked low-carbon solutions and new markets. More and more countries, regions, cities and companies are establishing carbon neutrality targets. Zero-carbon solutions are becoming competitive across economic sectors representing 25% of emissions. This trend is most noticeable in the power and transport sectors and has created many new business opportunities for early movers. By 2030, zero-carbon solutions could be competitive in sectors representing over 70% of global emissions.
(Extracted with edits from the website UNFCCC.INT)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Environmental Law