A two-judge Delhi high court bench on Monday overturned a single judge’s order holding that a chief minister’s promise at a press conference is enforceable, calling it misconceived.
A bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla ruled that no mandamus can be issued for enforcing a statement made at a press conference. “The prayer in the writ petition for direction to implement the assurance made in the press conference dated March 29, 2020, of the chief minister is misconceived and is accordingly rejected,” the court said. “We, however, reiterate our clear opinion that no mandamus can be issued to enforce the statement made by the chief minister in the press conference…”
A detailed copy of the verdict was awaited.
The Delhi government appealed against Justice Prathiba M Singh’s July 2021 order directing it to decide within six weeks on the then chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s announcement of paying the rent of poor tenants unable to do so due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Justice Singh directed the government to formulate a policy regarding this, as it was not a “political promise” at an election rally. She said the public trusts such statements and so “puffing”, which may be permissible in commercial advertising, ought not to be recognisable and permissible in governance.
The judgment came after five daily wage earners, who claimed they were unable to pay their rent and sought enforcement of Kejriwal’s promise, moved the court.
The Delhi government appealed against the single judge’s order, contending that Kejriwal’s remarks were merely a “fervent appeal” to the public in light of the pandemic. It argued that Justice Singh interpreted it as a binding promise.
The government argued that requiring the implementation of an isolated portion of the press conference, detached from its context and subsequent developments, particularly when the anticipated circumstances did not materialise, would be inequitable.
The division bench stayed the single judge’s order on September 27, 2021, saying that irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant if an order of stay is not passed.
In January 2024, the high court asked the government whether it was willing to resolve the dispute by paying the amount directed under the impugned judgment to the respondents. The court in December 2024 proceeded to hear the petition on the merits after the government declined the proposal to make the payment.