High Court Grants Two Weeks Time To Delhi Govt For Deciding Implementation Of Chief Minister's Assurance On Rent Payment For Poor

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted two weeks time to the Delhi Government for deciding the implementation of assurance given by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal that the State would pay rent on behalf of tenants if they are unable to do so due to poverty.

Justice Rekha Palli was hearing an 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 delivered in the matter. The said application has been filed through Advocate Gaurav Jain.

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. The petition sought enforcement of a promise made by the Delhi CM on 29th March last year.

The judgment had directed the Delhi Government to take a decision as to the implementation of the same within a period of 6 weeks.

"The 6 weeks expired on 02.09.2021. However, GNCTD has not yet complied with the above direction. Requests dated 29.08.2021 and 30.08.2021 made by Najma (P1), Karan Singh (P4) and Rehana Bibi (P5) have not been responded," the application submits.

The application also states that the petitioners had written an email dated September 6 requesting the CM and Deputy CM to convey GNCTD's decision taken in accordance with the direction, however, no response was received.

"Until a decision is taken, a "clear policy" as mentioned in 110(iii) cannot be framed. And without this policy, the petitioners and "the persons to whom the benefits were intended to be extended in the said statement" cannot get relief from the burden of outstanding rent accumulated during the lockdown of 2020," the application submits.

Calling it a willful disobedience of the judgment, the application further states that the Delhi Government has committed 'Contempt of Court'.

About High Court Judgement

It was the case of the petitioners that the CM gave a press conference, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which he requested 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.

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.

Title: NAJMA v. GNCTD