NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has set aside a 2021 single-judge order that had held former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s announcement during the Covid-19 lockdown—on payment of rent for poor tenants—to be legally enforceable, news agency ANI reported on Monday.A division bench of justice C Hari Shankar and justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled that statements made during a press conference cannot be treated as binding legal promises. The court underlined that no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the government to act on such assurances.The bench held that the demand to implement the chief minister’s announcement made on March 29, 2020, is not valid in law and therefore stands rejected. It also noted that the assurance was not part of any formal order, including the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) directive issued the same day, which remains unchallenged.However, the court provided limited relief to tenants. It said landlords cannot insist on rent for the period during which migrant tenants were unable to vacate their premises due to the lockdown. The Bench clarified that this protection is restricted strictly to the lockdown period and does not extend beyond it.The court further observed that the Delhi government is at liberty to take a policy decision on whether to support tenants by paying rent, but such a step cannot be enforced through judicial intervention. It added that the financial and practical implications of the announcement remain unclear and that it appeared to have been made in an emergency context.The matter stemmed from a july 22, 2021 order of a single judge, which had held that a chief minister’s promise could be enforced and had directed the government to frame a policy within a specified timeframe.The order had come on a petition filed by five daily wage workers who were unable to pay rent during the lockdown and sought implementation of the Chief Minister’s announcement.Challenging the ruling, the Delhi government argued that the statement was merely an appeal to landlords not to pressure tenants, and not a binding commitment. It maintained that the government had only said it would “look into” the issue if required.Earlier, on September 27, 2021, the Division Bench had stayed the single-judge order, citing potential administrative and financial complications. With the present judgment, the High Court has overturned the earlier ruling and disposed of the appeal, without any order as to costs.(With agency inputs)
