Political promises are just that: Delhi HC says ‘Arvind Kejriwal’s 2020 rent relief promise can’t be legally enforced’

The Delhi High Court has overturned a single judge’s direction that treated former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s 2020 statement on rent support for poor tenants as legally enforceable.

A division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla modified the earlier ruling, holding that no court can compel the government to implement a statement made during a press conference. The bench termed the plea seeking enforcement of the statement as “misconceived.”

Advertisement

The case stems from remarks made by Kejriwal during the early days of the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020. He had urged landlords to defer rent collection from poor tenants and said the then AAP-led government would step in to pay rent for those unable to do so. The previous Delhi government, in its appeal, argued that the statement was not a binding promise.

The division bench ruled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce such statements, even if made by a Chief Minister. It set aside the earlier finding that had treated the announcement as a binding assurance.

Timeline of the case

• March 29, 2020: Arvind Kejriwal, during a press conference amid the COVID-19 lockdown, urges landlords to defer rent and says the government would help tenants who cannot pay.
• July 22, 2021: A single judge of the Delhi High Court rules that the Chief Minister’s statement amounts to an enforceable promise and should be implemented. The case was filed by daily wage workers unable to pay rent.
• September 27, 2021: A division bench stays the single judge’s order in an appeal filed by the Delhi government.
• February 28, 2022: The Supreme Court dismisses a special leave petition filed by the workers challenging the stay.
• July 5, 2022: Another bench of the High Court declines to vacate the stay.
• Latest ruling: The division bench sets aside the single judge’s order, ruling that the statement cannot be enforced by law.

The judgment brings closure to a prolonged legal battle over whether public statements made during a crisis can be treated as binding commitments.