‘Mere statement by CM not enforceable in law’: Delhi HC overturns 2021 order
On March 29, 2020, Arvind Kejriwal, who was serving as the CM at the time, at a press conference had requested all landlords to delay the collection of rent from poor tenants as they struggled to earn livelihood during the Covid pandemic.
The Delhi HC’s ruling will effectively impact landlords, who, in light of the court’s ruling, cannot be allowed to recover the rent for the period when the migrant tenants could not move out due to Covid and did not have means to pay their dues.
Can an assurance made by a Chief Minister in a press conference in the absence of written policy be enforceable in law? No, ruled the Delhi High Court on Monday as it overturned a 2021 order by a single-judge bench.
A division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla — ruling on a Delhi government’s appeal against the July 22, 2021, order — said that it cannot “compel performance” of an assurance given by a Chief Minister and no direction “could be issued to enforce the statement.”
“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,” ruled the bench on Monday. However, the bench also noted that a statement made by an elected representative, “such as the CM, on a public podium” cannot be “lightly dismissed” as “merely” a “statement made by a politician”.
On March 29, 2020, Arvind Kejriwal, who was serving as the CM at the time, at a press conference had requested all landlords to delay the collection of rent from poor tenants as they struggled to earn livelihood during the Covid pandemic.
He had purportedly also assured that if any such tenants were in dire need, the government would pay the rent on their behalf.
Later, five daily wage labourers who were unable to pay rent, and a landlord, who had not received the monthly rent from his tenant, had moved the High Court, seeking the amount in line with Kejriwal’s assurance.
Noting that two assurances were made, one where landlords cannot compel migrant tenants to pay rent, and the second where the state would pay the said rent, the court observed that even as there was the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) for the former, there was no such order for the latter, making it “not a legally enforceable assurance”.
Story continues below this ad
The Delhi HC’s ruling will effectively impact landlords, who, in light of the court’s ruling, cannot be allowed to recover the rent for the period when the migrant tenants could not move out due to Covid and did not have means to pay their dues.
In Monday’s order, the High Court observed, “…the assurance was restricted merely to a statement made during the press conference held by the Chief Minister on March 29, 2020, and was never reduced to writing in the form of any official document or communication made known to the public. While we have no doubt that the migrants, and their landlords, who may have heard the statement, legitimately believed in its enforceability, the belief of the migrants and the landlords cannot translate into authority, on the part of the Court” to issue direction, commanding its compliance.
“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 assurance was apparently made in the heat of the situation, which was unquestionably unprecedented, so as to further incentivise the migrant tenants to remain indoors, but it was without any legal authority whatsoever,” the bench added.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
