Today, the Delhi High Court set aside an earlier ruling which had said that a promise made by a Chief Minister during a press conference can be legally enforced.
Earlier, the Court directed the Delhi government, led at the time by AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal, to frame a policy based on a promise he made during the COVID-19 lockdown.
However, a Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has now reversed that decision.
The Court clearly said that statements made by a Chief Minister in a press conference cannot be enforced through court orders.
The case relates to a press conference held by Arvind Kejriwal on March 29, 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown. At that time, he had appealed to landlords to not collect rent from poor tenants. He had also reportedly said that if tenants were unable to pay rent, the government would pay it on their behalf.
Following this, a group of petitioners, including daily wage workers who could not pay rent due to the lockdown, approached the Court seeking enforcement of this promise.
In July 2021, Justice Prathibha M. Singh had ruled in their favour, saying that such a promise made by a Chief Minister is enforceable. She had asked the Delhi government to either implement the promise by creating a policy or explain why it could not do so.
The Delhi government challenged this order. Now, the Division Bench has ruled that such a request itself is “misconceived” and cannot be accepted. The Court said it cannot direct the government to implement a statement made in a press conference.
The judges also noted that such statements may be made in the heat of the moment and the Court cannot assess their financial or practical impact. They pointed out that the promise was not even reflected in official orders issued at that time.
However, the Court clarified that during the COVID-19 lockdown, a 2020 order had already protected migrant tenants by preventing landlords from forcing them to pay rent or vacate their homes. This relief, however, was only for the lockdown period.
Further, the Court said that the government is still free to take a policy decision if it wants to implement such a promise in the future.
