The Delhi High Court on 06 April 2026, held that an assurance or promise extended by the Chief Minister of Delhi during a press conference on 29 March 2020, to bear the rent of poor and poverty-stricken migrant tenants during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, does not constitute an enforceable legal promise in the absence of any formal policy, Office Memorandum, Notification, Circular or other instrument having the force of law. A division bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla set aside the single judge order dated 22 July 2021 which had held the assurance legally enforceable by invoking the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.
The Court observed that four days into the nationwide lockdown, on 29 March 2020, the then Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had addressed a press conference requesting landlords to postpone collection of rent from poor tenants who were unable to pay due to the lockdown. He had further assured that the Government would pay the rent on behalf of such tenants if they were unable to do so owing to poverty. The single judge had held that a promise or assurance given by the Chief Minister in a press conference amounts to an enforceable promise and that a Chief Minister is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to such a promise. The division bench, however, rejected the Government’s submission that the assurance was merely a “statement made by a politician”. It clarified that there is a qualitative difference between a statement made by a politician before election to public office and one made thereafter. While a pre-election statement may only affect the politician’s public image or future electoral prospects, a statement made by an elected representative such as the Chief Minister on a public podium carries greater weight and cannot be lightly dismissed.
At the same time, the bench ruled that a mere statement made by the Chief Minister would not be enforceable in law, even if citizens to whom it was made believed it to be so. The Court observed that the assurance to pay rent out of State funds was not translated into any written document, Office Memorandum, Notification, Circular or any other instrument having the force of law. It said the press conference was not followed by issuance of any official document reducing the assurance to writing, which was extremely unfortunate. The bench emphasised that a mandamus can issue only to compel performance of a duty which the State or a public authority is required in law to perform. If no such legal liability exists, no writ of mandamus can issue. The Court held that it cannot bind the State Government to the assurance contained in the statement of the Chief Minister merely because of the circumstances in which it was made, if the said assurance is not otherwise enforceable in law.
The bench prima facie observed that the assurance by the Chief Minister that the State would bear the rent of all migrants was not made after the requisite degree of study and application of mind to all relevant aspects. It was of the clear view that the assurance that the State would pay the rent of the migrants, for the period during which the lockdown remained in force, having not been followed up with any official documentation to that effect, cannot be enforced by a writ of mandamus. Modifying the impugned order, the Court rejected the prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the State to implement the assurance contained in the press conference as being misconceived.
The bench, however, clarified that in view of the DDMA Order dated 29 March 2020, which has never been challenged, the landlords cannot be allowed to recover from their migrant tenants the rent for the period during which they continued to occupy the tenanted premises but were unable to move out owing to the COVID-imposed lockdown. This amnesty would, however, apply only for the period the lockdown remained in force. The Court also directed that this would not inhibit the State Government from taking a policy decision regarding the assurance given by the former Chief Minister in his press conference on 29 March 2020, should it so deem appropriate. It reiterated its clear opinion, however, that no mandamus could be issued to enforce the statement made by the then Chief Minister in the press conference on 29 March 2020. The bench further observed that it was unaware of the financial, logistical and other implications of enforcement of the decision that the State would bear the rent of the migrants, which prima facie appears to have been taken on the spur of the moment, as it does not even find reflection in the DDMA Order No. 122-A. It, therefore, expressed no view one way or the other thereon.
Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Najma and Ors.
Case No.: LPA 349/2021 with CM APPL. 33731/2021
Date of Judgment: 06 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 