Public Statements Made By Chief Minister Not Legally Enforceable Unless Formally Implemented: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi challenging the judgment of a Single Judge, which had directed the Government to decide on implementing the Chief Minister’s assurance that the State would pay rent on behalf of tenants unable to do so during the COVID-19 lockdown.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed: “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, … inasmuch 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”.

Standing Counsel Sameer Vashisht, along with Advocates Harshita Nathrani & Aryaman Vachher, represented the appellants, while Advocate Gaurav Jain represented the respondents.

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a nationwide lockdown was imposed, severely affecting migrant workers and daily wage earners. In this backdrop, the Chief Minister of Delhi, in a press conference dated 29 March 2020, appealed to landlords not to evict tenants and further assured that if tenants were unable to pay rent due to poverty, the Government would bear the rent.

While the Disaster Management Authority had issued directions restraining landlords from evicting tenants or demanding rent for a limited period, no formal policy, notification, or statutory instrument was issued by the Government undertaking liability to pay rent on behalf of tenants.

The Single Judge, invoking doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, held that the assurance was enforceable and directed the Government to decide on its implementation. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred the present appeal.

Court’s Observation

The Court first clarified that the statement made by the Chief Minister could not be dismissed as a casual political statement, noting that it was made by a constitutional functionary during an extraordinary public crisis. However, the Court emphasised that the enforceability of such a statement must be tested strictly on legal principles.

It observed that while statements made by elected officials carry weight and may generate public reliance, they do not, by themselves, create binding legal obligations unless supported by law.

The Court held that for an assurance of the Government to be enforceable, it must be translated into a formal instrument having the force of law. It noted: “the assurance… was not translated to any written document, Office Memorandum, Notification, Circular, or any other instrument having the force of law.”

In the absence of such formalisation, the Court held that the assurance remained merely a statement lacking legal enforceability, irrespective of the circumstances in which it was made or the expectations it generated.

The Court further emphasised that governmental action must conform to constitutional and statutory requirements, including the framework under Article 166, and cannot be enforced based on oral declarations.

Examining the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Court held that not every assurance or representation amounts to a “promise” in the legal sense. The Bench highlighted that “the Supreme Court goes to the extent of holding that such a statement does not even constitute a 'promise', apart from independently ruling that it is not enforceable on the principle of promissory estoppel”.

The Court reiterated that statements made by Ministers, even in legislative forums, do not automatically constitute enforceable promises unless backed by legal authority and intent to create binding obligations.

The Court then examined whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to enforce the assurance. It held that mandamus lies only to enforce a statutory or legal duty. It observed: “A mandamus can issue only to compel performance of a duty which the State… is required, in law, to perform. If no such legal liability exists, no writ of mandamus can issue.” Thus, even if citizens believed in the assurance and acted upon it, such a belief could not create a legal obligation enforceable by courts.

The Court acknowledged that the assurance was made in extraordinary circumstances and that citizens may have legitimately relied upon it. However, it held that such reliance cannot substitute the requirement of a legally enforceable obligation. It was observed that permitting enforcement of such statements based solely on context or hardship would render the law subjective and undermine the requirement of legality.

While holding the assurance unenforceable, the Court noted that the failure of the State to translate the assurance into a formal policy was “extremely unfortunate.” It was observed that the Government ought to have reduced the assurance into a formal document to give it legal sanctity.

However, such an omission could not justify judicial enforcement of an otherwise unenforceable statement, the Court concluded.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the assurance made by the Chief Minister regarding payment of rent by the State, not having been formalised into any legally binding instrument, was not enforceable in law and could not be the basis for issuance of a writ of mandamus.

It further held that doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were inapplicable in the absence of a clear, legally enforceable promise backed by statutory authority.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the directions issued by the Single Judge to the extent they treated the assurance as enforceable and required the Government to consider its implementation.

Cause Title: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Najma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2834-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgment