Delhi High Court Stays Order Declaring CM's Promise On Payment Of Rent For Poor As 'Legally Enforceable'

A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh said that operation and implementation of the single judge order will be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing, ie., November 29. It also orally asked the Government if it is willing to pay in part.

The development comes in an appeal preferred by the Delhi Government against the single judge order. Senior Advocate Manish Vashisht claimed that Kejriwal's statement was not a "promise".

Four days into the nation-wide lockdown, i.e., on March 29, 2020, the Delhi CM apparently held a press conference requesting all landlords to postpone the demand/collection of rent from those tenants who were poor and poverty stricken. Arvind Kejriwal had further said that the Government would pay rent on behalf of tenants if they are unable to do so due to poverty.

In a judgment passed by Justice Pratibha Singh in July this year, it was held that a promise or assurance given by the Chief Minister in a press conference amounts to an enforceable promise and that a CM is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to such a promise.

Opposing the appeal, Advocate Gaurav Jain argued that there was no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of Delhi Government. He stated that the respondents, merely six in number, are very poor and it is surprising that Delhi Government has preferred an appeal for such a small amount of rent.

In related development, Justice Rekha Palli adjourned hearing of the application filed by daily wage labourers/ workers who were unable to pay their monthly rent, seeking directions on the Delhi Government to take a decision as per the judgment impugned.

The adjournment was given in view of the instant stay order.

About impugned judgment

According to the Petitioners, a solemn assurance was given that the Government would take care of the tenants.

It was thus stated that not only has the Delhi Government not honoured the promise made by the CM in the press conference, but in fact none of the communications sent by the Petitioners and similarly situated individuals to the Government were responded to.

Relying on plethora of judgments, the Court had reiterated that the two doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation have their genesis in the concept of trust between citizen and the Government and that good governance requires the said trust to be maintained between those who govern and those who are governed.

The Court had further observed that the CM and the Council of Ministers are to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, and an assurance given by the CM, in a press conference, i.e., a public platform, even without resulting in a formal policy or an order on behalf of the GNCTD, would create a valuable and legal right by applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

It had thus remarked:

"The promise/assurance/representation given by the CM clearly amounts to an enforceable promise, the implementation of which ought to be considered by the Government. Good governance requires that promises made to citizens, by those who govern, are not broken, without valid and justifiable reasons."

"The CM is expected to have had the said knowledge and is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to his promise/assurance. To that extent, it would not be out of the place to state that a reasonable citizen would believe that the CM has spoken on behalf of his Government, while making the said promise", the Court had held.

Case Title: GNCTD vs Najma & Ors.