Read Time: 12 minutes

A Single-judge Bench of Delhi High Court presided over by Justice Pratibha M. Singh heard a petition on Thursday filed by four daily wage labourers namely Ms. Najma, Ms. NirmalaSavita, Ms. Rashidhan and Mr. Karana Singh, in the capacity of tenants seeking some action from the Delhi State Government to realize the promises that its head representative, the Chief Minister of Delhi Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, made before the public in a press conference. 

The judgement in the case carrying immense significance begins with the following para,

“The saying ‘Promises are meant to be broken’ is well known in the social context. However, law has evolved the doctrine of legitimate expectations and promissory estoppel to ensure that promises made by the Government, its officials and other authorities are not broken and are, in fact, judicially enforceable, subject to certain conditions.”

The Chief Minister of Delhi (CM) on 29th March,2020, four days after the nationwide Lockdown was imposed, gave a press conference, in which he requested all landlords to postpone the demand/collection of rent from those tenants who are poverty stricken. It is alleged that the CM in furtherance of this request, made a clear promise that if any such tenant is unable to pay rent, the Government would pay the same on his/her behalf.

The promises made by the CM appeared as a solemn assuranceto the public. 

The petitioners urged before the Hon'ble Court that as the CM has failed to deliver on the said assurance, the court must interfere and direct the State Government to deliver what theCM promised. 

Counsel for the petitioners- Mr. Gaurav Jain

Counsel for the respondents- Mr. Rahul Mehra

Following important observation can be traced throughout this Judgement- 

1. The petitioners alleged that despite their repeated requests,the Delhi Government turned a blind eye towards theirplight though the CM himself made such humongous promises directly to the public. Poverty stricken petitioners had to take loans to pay their rents, but when they made a representation before the CM office, asking the CM to adhere to his promise and pay their outstanding rent, the office of the Principal Secretary, Home Department, GNCTD, replied with an email that their request is being forwarded to the CM's official email ID. This was clearly a mocking of the plight of the aggrieved. 

2. The counsel on behalf of the Delhi Government urged before the court that the petition being a mere lump sum of a general statement is liable to be dismissed in sans of maintainability. However, Justice Singh held that opposite. 

Relying upon a UK Judgment R. v. Liverpool Corporation, ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association, [1972] 2 All ER 589, that have elucidated the principles of doctrine of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations, and a bunch ofother international and Indian judicial decisions, the Single-judge bench concluded two-folds of  principles regarding the present issue.

(i) Principles emerging from decisions in United : The Delhi HC bench concluded that the two doctrines have their genesis in the concept of TRUST between citizen and the Government. There have to be a justifiable reasons in law, in order to negate the application of the said two doctrines. The promise, assurance or representation made by the Government has to be judged from the understanding of a common individual. Government cannot run away from its obligation. The doctrine of legitimate expectations is a guide and is not to be treated like a cage. 

(ii) Principles emerging from decisions in India: It is necessary to promote honesty and good faith in governance. Executive necessity does not constitute an adequate reason to not give effect to a representation. If the promise made is clear and unequivocal, the Court can enforce it. 

A mere ipse-dixit would not work, and the Government cannot presume self-exemption. Only a Court can grant exemption from liability for not adhering to the assurance, provided the Government shows proper justification. 

3. Holding that the CM's speech in issue is undisputed, the court took note of the factual backdrop of the case ,observing that the CM's address in the press conference held three dimensions: an appeal, a promise and a warning, making it as clear as possible that the CM was assuring the people he represents.

4. The court observed that both above-mentioned doctrines are a reflection of the legal recognition being accorded to the trust that citizen repose on promises/assurance/representations which are made by Constitutional functionaries and governmental authorities. Therefore the authorities are answerable to the people for the same. 

5. However the court also took note of the point that the two doctrines are not absolute in the nature. There are various conditions that need to be satisfied for legal enforcement of rights claimed under these doctrines. 

6. The court observed that many tenants of Delhi , on the assurance of the CM must have altered their position on leaving Delhi after the announcement of the Lockdown in March, 2020. Therefore, the CM is responsible for the people who trusted his words of assurance. 

7. On the question that whether the Government can stay silent in the context when a senior functionary like CM gives a promise to the public, the court held that such inaction would not be  permissible. 

8. The court concluded the judgement stating, 

“In the present case, in the backdrop of the commitment made, it is not the positive decision making which is arbitrary, but the lack of decision making or indecision, which the Court holds to be contrary to law.”

9. In the light of the above observations, the Court issued directions to GNCTD to take a decision as to the implementation of the same within a period of sex weeks, bearing in mind the larger interest of the persons to whom the benefits were intended to be extended in the said statement, as also overriding public interest concerns. 

The GNCTD was further directed to form a clear policy upon the decision taken.