-
by sayum
06 April 2026 10:36 AM
"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." Today, Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 6, 2026, held that an oral assurance given by a Chief Minister on a public platform does not constitute an enforceable legal promise unless it is backed by a formal executive instrument.
A bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that "no mandamus could be issued to enforce the statement made by the then Chief Minister in the press conference," while dealing with a 2020 assurance regarding the payment of rent for poverty-stricken migrant workers during the COVID-19 lockdown.
During the stringent 2020 pandemic lockdown, the then Delhi Chief Minister held a press conference appealing to landlords not to evict tenants, orally assuring them that the State government would pay the rent of impoverished migrants unable to afford it. Several daily wage labourers and a landlord approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to enforce this public statement. A Single Judge directed the Delhi Government to take a policy decision to implement the Chief Minister's promise, prompting the State to file the present intra-court appeal.
The primary question before the court was whether an oral statement made by an elected Chief Minister in a press conference creates a legally enforceable promise against the State. The court was also called upon to determine whether the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation could be invoked to compel the State to honor such an unwritten assurance.
Distinction Between Political Speech And Formal Policy
The court noted that there is a qualitative difference between a statement made by a politician before being elected and one made by a Chief Minister occupying a public office. While acknowledging that an elected representative's statement wears an entirely different complexion and cannot be lightly dismissed, the bench held that elevating such a statement to a legally binding obligation requires a formal statutory or executive foundation.
No Enforceability Without An Executive Instrument
Delving into the legal weight of the press conference, the bench underscored that the assurance to pay rent was never translated into a formal policy under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that "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."
Mandamus Cannot Compel Unwritten Promises
The court categorically rejected the notion that a citizen's belief in the Chief Minister's words could authorize the judiciary to command state compliance. The bench clarified that a writ of mandamus can only be issued to compel the performance of a duty that the State is required by law to perform. Rejecting the reliance on the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, the court held that it "cannot bind the State 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."
"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."
Promissory Estoppel Inapplicable To Informal Assurances
Examining the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Ganesh Rice Mills and State of Karnataka v. K.K. Mohandas. The bench reiterated that the principle of promissory estoppel does not operate at the level of government policy, especially regarding financial decisions lacking statutory backing. The court noted that the oral assurance to pay rent was undertaken without legal authority, as no guidelines under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, or the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, authorized such expenditure.
"The assurance, by the Chief Minister, in his press conference, that the rent payable by the migrant tenants to their landlords would be paid by the State does not find support, therefore, from statute, executive instruction, or any other instrument having the force of law."
Legitimate Expectation Creates No Substantive Right
The court also overturned the Single Judge's reliance on the doctrine of legitimate expectation to enforce the Chief Minister's words. Citing the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench decision in Sivananda C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, the division bench clarified that the doctrine creates a mere expectation, not a substantive legal right. Since no legally enforceable promise existed in the first instance, the court concluded that the principle of legitimate expectation could not independently found a claim for relief.
Eviction Ban During Lockdown Strictly Upheld
Despite dismissing the financial claim against the State exchequer, the court firmly upheld the protection granted to tenants under the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) Order No. 122-A. The bench affirmed that landlords are legally disentitled from recovering rent from migrant tenants for the specific lockdown period. The court highlighted that this proscription was binding because, unlike the oral assurance to pay the rent, the ban on eviction was formally codified in a written DDMA order that was never challenged.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the Single Judge's directive that compelled the State to implement the Chief Minister's oral assurance. While clarifying that landlords remain barred by the DDMA order from recovering rent from migrants for the specific lockdown period, the court left it entirely to the State's voluntary discretion to frame any future policy regarding rent reimbursement.
Date of Decision: 06 April 2026
