Why Delhi High Court Said No To Enforcing Arvind Kejriwal's COVID-Era Rent Promise

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Delhi High Court's Division Bench, on Nonday (6 April) has ruled that a Chief Minister's public assurances at a press conference carry no legally enforceable weight, overturning a landmark single-judge verdict tied to a COVID-19 era promise made by then-CM Arvind Kejriwal, according to a report by Bar and Bench.

Delhi High Court Strikes Down Enforceability of CM's Press Conference Pledge

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that statements made by a Chief Minister at a press conference cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus, decisively overturning an earlier ruling that had treated such public assurances as binding commitments on the state.

Also Read | Delhi Liquor 'scam': Kejriwal, other accused move recusal application in HC

The judgement was delivered by Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla in the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Najma.

The Kejriwal COVID-19 Rent Promise That Sparked the Legal Battle

The case traces its origins to 29 March 2020, at the height of the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown, when Arvind Kejriwal, then Chief Minister of Delhi and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, held a press conference in which he urged landlords across the capital to defer rent collection from economically distressed tenants.

Critically, Kejriwal is alleged to have gone further, making what petitioners characterised as an unambiguous pledge: that the Delhi government would step in and pay rent on behalf of any tenant who was too impoverished to do so themselves.

The promise resonated with thousands of daily wage labourers and migrant workers who had been rendered financially destitute by the economic fallout of the Covid pandemic. A group of such individuals, identifying themselves as tenants wholly unable to meet their rental obligations, approached the High Court seeking judicial enforcement of that assurance, Bar and Bench reported.

Single Judge Ruled the Promise Was Legally Binding - Division Bench Disagrees

In July 2021, Justice Prathibha M Singh accepted the petitioners' case, ruling that an assurance or promise given by a Chief Minister at a press conference is enforceable in law.

The single-judge bench directed the Delhi government to take concrete steps towards framing a policy to give effect to the former CM's pledge, and further ordered that the government provide reasoned justification should it choose not to implement the proposal.

The Delhi government challenged that verdict, and on Monday, the Division Bench unequivocally reversed it.

"No mandamus could be issued to enforce the statement made by the then Chief Minister in the press conference," the court held.

Division Bench: The Writ Petition Was "Misconceived"

The two-judge bench went on to characterise the entire legal endeavour as fundamentally flawed from the outset. "The prayer and the writ petition for a direction to the state to implement the assurance contained in the press conference dated 29th March 2020 of the chief minister is misconceived, and this accordingly rejected," it stated.

The court also raised serious concerns about the practical and fiscal dimensions of the assurance, flagging that it appeared to have been made impulsively, without due deliberation or institutional backing.

"We are unaware of the financial, logistical, and other implications of enforcement of the decision that the State would wear the rank 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 1228. We, therefore, are not expressing any view one way or the other, thereon," the bench observed.

DDMA Order Offered Partial Relief to Migrant Tenants During Lockdown

Whilst rejecting the enforceability of the press conference promise, the Division Bench acknowledged that a District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) order issued in 2020 did offer a degree of protection to migrant tenants during the lockdown period. Under that order, landlords were prohibited from recovering rent from migrant tenants who were unable to vacate their rented accommodation due to movement restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 crisis.

However, the Delhi court clarified that this protection was temporally limited, applicable solely for the duration of the lockdown, and could not be extrapolated into an ongoing, government-funded rent subsidy scheme.

Court Leaves Door Open for Voluntary Policy Action by Delhi Government

In a notable closing caveat, the Division Bench stopped short of categorically foreclosing the possibility of the Delhi government independently choosing to honour the spirit of the former CM's assurance through legitimate policy channels.

"This would not, however, inhibit the State government from taking a policy decision regarding the assurance given by the former chief minister, regarding the State paying the rent of the migrants, should it so deem appropriate," Bar and Bench quoted the Delhi HC saying before disposing of the state's appeal.

MENAFN06042026007365015876ID1110945702