Delhi High Court: Arvind Kejriwal’s Press Conference Promise Not Legally Enforceable Without Policy Backing

The Delhi High Court on Monday held that an assurance made by a Chief Minister during a press conference does not constitute a legally enforceable promise in the absence of any formal policy, statutory backing, or official documentation.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the ruling while setting aside a 2021 single judge order that had treated former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s announcement on payment of rent for poor tenants during the COVID 19 lockdown as legally enforceable.

“Had the NDMA or DDMA held this to be a further step which was necessary to curtail the spread of the pandemic, or had any Executive Instruction, Circular, Memorandum, Rule or Regulation to that effect been issued alongside the statement of the Chief Minister, the assurance that the rent of the migrants would have been borne by the State would have become enforceable in law as, then, the assurance would have metamorphosed from a mere statement in a press conference to a documented indicator of State intent. That, however, never took place, and, we reiterate, most unfortunately…….The question of issuing a writ of mandamus, in the terms sought by the petitioners does not, therefore, arise. If the Government decides to act in accordance with the assurance, it would certainly be at liberty to do so, but we cannot compel performance by mandamus”, the Court observed.

The controversy dates back to March 29, 2020, shortly after the nationwide lockdown was imposed. During a press conference, Kejriwal had urged landlords not to demand rent from poor tenants and stated that the government would step in to pay rent on behalf of those unable to do so due to financial distress.

In July 2021, a Single Judge of the High Court had ruled that such an assurance amounted to a binding promise and directed the Delhi Government to frame a policy to give effect to it. The decision came on a plea filed by daily wage workers who had been unable to pay rent during the lockdown.

However, the Division Bench overturned this view, drawing a clear distinction between political assurances and enforceable legal obligations. The Court emphasized that while statements made by elected representatives carry weight and cannot be casually dismissed, they do not automatically create legal rights or liabilities unless formalized through recognized legal instruments.

The Bench observed that no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the government to act on such assurances unless there exists a corresponding legal duty. “A mandamus can issue only where there is a legally enforceable obligation,” the Court noted, adding that the Chief Minister’s statement was not followed by any notification, circular, office memorandum, or statutory order.

At the same time, the Court rejected the Delhi Government’s argument that the statement was merely a casual political remark. It clarified that statements made by elected officials after assuming office carry a different character than pre-election promises, but still require formalization to attain enforceability.

Significantly, the Court described the absence of any follow up official action as “unfortunate,” observing that the government ought to have translated the assurance into a formal document if it intended to implement it.

“The press conference was not followed, however, by the issuance of any official document, such as an Office Memorandum, Notification, Public Notice or Circular, reducing the assurance held out by the Chief Minister to writing. Why, is not for us to hazard any view, but the circumstance was, at the least, extremely unfortunate. We are clear in our mind that the State Government of the day ought to have translated the assurance given by the Chief Minister into a written document, so that it would acquire legal form and sanctity”, the Court stated.

Despite refusing to enforce the promise, the Court granted limited relief to tenants. It held that landlords cannot recover rent for the period during which tenants were unable to vacate premises due to the lockdown, in light of the existing order issued by the Delhi Disaster Management Authority. However, this protection is strictly confined to the lockdown duration and does not extend beyond it.

The Bench further clarified that the State Government remains free to take a policy decision on providing financial support to tenants, but such a step cannot be compelled through judicial intervention.

The Court also noted that the financial and logistical implications of implementing such a promise were unclear and appeared not to have been fully considered at the time it was made.

“We are unaware of the financial, logistical and other implications of enforcement of the decision that the State would bear the rent 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 No. 122-A. We, therefore, are not expressing any view, one way or the other, thereon”, the Court observed.

With this ruling, the High Court has conclusively held that while public assurances by constitutional functionaries carry moral and political significance, they do not attain the force of law unless backed by formal executive action. The appeal was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Najma and Ors.

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Date of Judgement: 06.04.2026