Principle: Damages the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the loss suffered by a person.
Facts: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter’s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favor A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.

Question

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and, in fact, the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promise 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 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promise must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise.
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’].

Answer 1

The key insight is that the loss here is the wrongful denial of A's right to vote itself, not the election outcome, so the fact that his preferred candidate won anyway doesn't erase the loss.

A entitled to damages: A was wrongfully denied his legal right to vote despite being eligible and present in time; that denial of a legal right is itself a loss the principle compensates.
A not entitled to damages: Incorrect, it wrongly assumes no loss occurred just because the favoured candidate won; the loss is the denial of the right, not the election result.
Only nominal damages: The principle sets no such cap, it simply speaks of recompense for the loss suffered.
Exemplary damages: The principle describes compensatory recompense, not a punitive remedy, so this mischaracterises the entitlement.

The correct answer is A will be entitled to damages.

Answer 2

Assuming each option true.

A entitled to damages: Assume true, then A must have suffered a loss within the meaning of the principle. He did, being wrongfully denied his legal right to vote despite being eligible, listed, and present in time, which is a loss regardless of the eventual result, matching the assumption.
A not entitled to damages: Assume true, then no loss should have occurred to A at all. But the wrongful denial of his vote is itself a loss under the plain definition, so the assumption would require ignoring that denial simply because the favoured candidate still won, which the definition gives no basis for doing.
Only nominal damages: Assume true, then the principle's definition would need to specify a nominal cap. It contains no such qualifier, so the assumption reads in a limit the text doesn't state.
Exemplary damages: Assume true, then the definition would need to describe a punitive purpose. It describes only compensatory recompense for loss, so the assumption attributes a character to the remedy that the wording doesn't support.

Only the assumption that A is entitled to damages, without qualification, is consistent with the plain wording tying recompense to loss suffered.

Therefore, the correct answer is A will be entitled to damages.

Answer 3

Assuming each option true.

A entitled to damages: Assume true, then A must have suffered a loss within the meaning of the principle. He did, being wrongfully denied his legal right to vote despite being eligible, listed, and present in time, which is a loss regardless of the eventual result, matching the assumption.
A not entitled to damages: Assume true, then no loss should have occurred to A at all. But the wrongful denial of his vote is itself a loss under the plain definition, so the assumption would require ignoring that denial simply because the favoured candidate still won, which the definition gives no basis for doing.
Only nominal damages: Assume true, then the principle's definition would need to specify a nominal cap. It contains no such qualifier, so the assumption reads in a limit the text doesn't state.
Exemplary damages: Assume true, then the definition would need to describe a punitive purpose. It describes only compensatory recompense for loss, so the assumption attributes a character to the remedy that the wording doesn't support.

Only the assumption that A is entitled to damages, without qualification, is consistent with the plain wording tying recompense to loss suffered.

Therefore, the correct answer is A will be entitled to damages.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Contract Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam