Promise Made By Chief Minister During Press Conference Not Legally Enforceable Without Policy Backing: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Monday held that an assurance or promise made by a Chief Minister during a press conference does not constitute an enforceable legal promise in the absence of any formal policy or statutory backing.
A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said that such a promise cannot be enforced by way of a writ of mandamus if no legal liability exists.
The Court made the observations while setting aside a single judge directive making promises extended by former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for payment of rent on behalf of poor tenants in 2020 “legally enforceable.”
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 its ruling passed on July 22, 2021, the single judge had 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.
Deciding the Delhi Government's appeal today, the division bench rejected the government's submission that the assurance to bear the rent of the migrants made in the press conference was merely a “statement made by a politician”.
It said there is a distinction between a statement made by politician before he is elected to public office, and the statement made by the politician thereafter. The Court said that at the highest, the failure to abide by the promises made by a politician prior to his election to public office may only affect, adversely, his public image, and, perhaps, future success in elections.
“A statement made by an elected representative of the people, such as the Chief Minister, on a public podium is qualitatively different. Such a statement, therefore, wears an entirely different complexion, as compared to a statement made by the same politician before his election to public office. The statement, in the present case, is not, therefore, merely a statement by a politician, but a statement by the Chief Minister of the State, and cannot, therefore, be lightly dismissed,” the Court said.
In the same breath however, the Bench ruled that a mere statement made by the Chief Minister would not be enforceable in law, even if the citizens to whom it was made believed it to be so.
It said that as the assurance to pay the rent out of State funds was not translated to any written document, Office Memorandum, Notification, Circular, or any other instrument having the force of law, it cannot be enforced merely because it was made in a statement during the press conference.
“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 said.
“A mandamus can issue only to compel performance of a duty which the State, or public authority, is required, in law, to perform. If no such legal liability exists, no writ of mandamus can issue,” it added.
The Bench said that it cannot bind the State Government to the assurance contained in the statement of the Chief Minister merely because of the circumstances in which it was made, if said assurance is not, otherwise, enforceable in law.
It prima facie observed that the assurance by the Chief Minister that the State would bear the rent of all migrants, was not made after the requisite degree of study and application of mind to all relevant aspects.
“We are, therefore, of the clear view that the assurance that the State would pay the rent of the migrants, for the period during which the lockdown remained in force, having not been followed up with any official documentation to that effect, cannot be enforced by a writ of mandamus,” the judges said.
Modifying the impugned order, the Court rejected the prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the State to implement the assurance contained in the press conference as being misconceived.
It also said that in view of DDMA Order of March 2020, which has never been challenged, the landlords cannot be allowed to recover, from their migrant tenants, the rent for the period during which they continued to occupy the tenanted premises, but were unable to move out owing to the COVID imposed lockdown.
This amnesty would, however, apply only for the period the lockdown remained in force, it said.
Other directions are:
- This would not, however, inhibit the State Government from taking a policy decision regarding the assurance given by the former Chief Minister in his press conference on 29 March 2020, regarding the State paying the rent of the migrants, should it so deem appropriate. We reiterate our clear opinion, however, that no mandamus could be issued to enforce the statement made by the then Chief Minister in the press conference on 29 March 2020.
- 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.
Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. NAJMA AND ORS