The doctrine of promissory estoppel is established on the principles of fair play, justice and good conscience. This principle was evolved by equity to prevent injustice. This Principle means that when one party is having the intention of creating a lawful relationship and makes a promise with the other party and following this the other party acts on it, then the promise will be binding on the party who is making the promise and also that it will not be permitted to go back on its promise because reverting will be against equity.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine. Like all equitable remedies, it is discretionary in nature. This principle is evolved by equity to avoid injustice and is commonly called ‘promissory estoppel’, it is neither in the realm of estoppel nor in the realm of contract. In India, however, as the rule of estoppel is a rule of evidence, the ingredients of Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be satisfied with the application of the doctrine. The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not fall within the ambit of Section 115 as the section talks about representations made as to existing facts whereas promissory estoppel deals with future promises. The application of the doctrine would invalidate the constitutional provision, as under Article 299, which provides an exception from personal liability of the person making the declaration or promise.

Essential Elements

1. Promisor made a promise significant enough to cause the promisee to act on it
   
2. Promisee totally relied upon the promisor’s promise
3. Significant damage suffered by the promisee
4. Relief can only come in the form of that the promise is fulfilled by the promiser

Applicability

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable to statutes. In other words, an individual who makes a statement regarding the existence of the provisions of a statute does not constitute estoppel, subsequently, from asserting that the statutory provision is different from what he has earlier stated. A person may not represent the true status of a law or statute, but the other person who has relied on such a representation has the option to find out the position of law on that particular matter and as the maxim says, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So a person will not be able to take recourse to the defence of estoppel to plead that a false representation has been made as to the provisions of a law or statute. The principles of estoppel cannot overrule the provisions of a law or statute. Where a statute imposes a duty by positive action, estoppel cannot preclude it. The doctrine of estoppel cannot also be invoked to stop the executive and legislative organs of the Government from discharging their duties.

Significance

In today’s world a promise of Government to any citizens or to any non-citizen matters a lot particularly if it is done in a business or contractual transaction. When a person relies on the Government’s promise and makes an investment of hard-earned money and the Government afterwards does not stand by its promise then it creates a situation where the investment of that person is in danger and he becomes helpless and vulnerable. The judicial authorities or the judiciary in India has performed a very important role in making the State accountable and responsible and made to obey by its promise.

Law Commission Recommendations

The Law Commission in its In the 108th report submitted in 1984 suggested Section 25 A in Indian Contract Act which is as follows:

1. Where
   
1. A person has, by his words or conduct made to another person, an unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or to affect a legal relationship in arise in the future; and
2. Such a person knows or intends that the promise would be acted upon by the person to whom it is made; and
3. The promise is, in fact, so acted upon by the other person, by altering his position. When notwithstanding that the promise is without consideration if shall be binding to the person making it. If having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, it would be unjust not to hold him to be so bound.
2. The provision of this section shall not apply:-
1. Where the events that have subsequently happened show that it would be unjust to hold the promisor to be bound by the promise; or,
2. Where the promisor is the Govt. and enforcing the promise would be inconsistent with an obligation or liability imposed on the Govt. by law.

Case Laws

Gopi Chand Television V. Director Doordarshan Kendra, Hyderabad AIR 1995 AP 199:

In this case, the petitioner made a proposal to a serial for Doordarshan in 13 episodes but he later sought approval to produce the serial in 26 episodes, so he became prohibited through estoppel.

Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh:

In this case, the Supreme Court did not apply estoppel against the Government in cases of contracts not entered into according to the form prescribed in Article 299 of the Constitution. The court held that if the estoppel is permitted it would mean the repeal of a significant constitutional provision, intended for safeguarding the general public.

Central Airmen Selection Board v. Surender Kumar:

In this case, the court held that an individual, who has himself misguided the authority by making a fraudulent statement, could not invoke this principle if his misrepresentation misguided the authority into reaching a decision, which on the discovery of the misinterpretation is sought to be cancelled.

Conclusion

A person cannot live in isolation when we are living in a society; every person is dependent on each other. It brought commercial and contractual relationship. The promise of one person, when becomes important for other person and cause for profit and loss, and then if it is refused it may cause harm to other one, so for their protecting them the doctrine of promissory estoppel is available as a safeguard. Promissory estoppel is a suitable defence and a good principle to avoid injustice. The judicial authority in India has played a very important role in making the promise accountable and responsible and also made it obey by its promise.