SC junks appeal challenging stay of Delhi High Court order to enforce Kejriwal’s speech promising rent relief

Justice Chandrachud quoted from the CM’s address and said “look at the speech – ‘Thhoda bahaut kiraya’ (some portion of the rent)…” and asked, “can you apply promissory estoppel to it?”. He added, “There has to be some policy, a notification has to be issued…”

In its order, the court, however, only said it is dismissing the same as it is against an interlocutory order of a division bench of the HC in an appeal against another order of a single bench.

“Since the Special Leave Petition is directed against an interlocutory order which has been passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge, no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution has been made out,” the order said.

The SLP challenged the September 27, 2021, Division Bench order of the HC staying the July 22 Single Bench order which had ruled that the government was bound by the CM’s promise.

“The saying `promises are meant to be broken’ is well known in the social context. However, law has evolved the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel to ensure that promises made by the Government, its officials, and other authorities are not broken and are, in fact, judicially enforceable, subject to certain conditions,” said the Single Judge.

The Single Judge said that a statement given in a consciously held press conference in the background of the lockdown and “mass exodus” of migrant labourers cannot be simply overlooked and that the assurance was not a political promise and not made as a part of any election rally.

“This court is of the opinion that the promise/assurance/representation given by the CM clearly amounts to an enforceable promise, the implementation of which ought to be considered by the government. Good governance requires that promises made to citizens, by those who govern, are not broken, without valid and justifiable reasons,” the Single-Judge had ruled.

“There is a reasonable expectation on behalf of citizens that the CM knows the background in which such a promise is being made, the number of people who would be affected by the same as also the financial implications of such a promise/assurance… The statement was not made by a government functionary at a lower level in the hierarchy, who could be devoid of such knowledge,” it said.

The petitioners had approached the HC saying Kejriwal had March 29, 2020, in a press conference requested all landlords to postpone the demand or collection of rent from those tenants “who are poor and poverty-stricken” and also promised that if any tenant is unable to pay the rent due to poverty, the government would pay on their behalf.