CM’s press statements not legally enforceable without formal order: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court ruled that a chief minister's statements during press conferences are not legally enforceable unless formalized in a legal document.

The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that statements or assurances made by a chief minister during a press conference do not become legally enforceable unless they are formalised in a legally enforceable document.

CM’s press statements not legally enforceable without formal order: Delhi HC

A division bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla thus overturned single judge’s July 2021 order in which it held that former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s press statement assuring that his government would pay the rent on behalf of poor tenants who were unable to do so owing to Covid-19, was legally enforceable and directed the government to take a call in six weeks.

In its 50-page judgment, the bench termed the single judge’s ruling “misconceived”, observing that a writ of mandamus — an order directing the State or a public authority to perform an act — can be issued only where there exists a legal duty and cannot be granted in the absence of a corresponding legal obligation.

The assurance, the court observed, was apparently made in the “heat of the situation” so as to further incentivise the migrant tenants to remain indoors but it was without any legal authority whatsoever.

“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. In as much 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. 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,” the court held.

It added, “We are clear, in our mind, that the fact that the statement was made consequent on the onset of Covid, and the circumstances in which it was made, cannot influence us in compelling its performance. As such, the said assurance, as extended by the chief minister in his press conference on 29 March 2020, was not supported by any provision, statutory or executive, having the force of law. To that extent, the Chief Minister had undertaken to do something for which the law did not provide.”

The July 2021 verdict had arisen from a plea filed by five daily wage earners who claimed they were unable to pay their monthly rent and sought enforcement of Kejriwal’s statement made during the Covid-19 lockdown, in which he had appealed to landlords not to coerce financially distressed tenants to pay rent.

The Delhi government had then challenged the decision before the division bench contending that Kejriwal’s statement during the pandemic did not constitute an enforceable promise, as no law, contract, or executive instruction approved by the lieutenant governor obligated the State to pay tenants’ rent. The government’s lawyer Sameer Vashisth further submitted that the circumstance which prompted Kejriwal to make the statement of which enforcement was being sought was no longer in existence after 29 April 2020.

The tenants’ lawyer Gaurav Jain opposed the petition arguing that the statement was made in extraordinary circumstances to provide relief to vulnerable individuals during the pandemic and continued to remain relevant until October–November 2020. He submitted that the single judge rightly treated the statement as a promise impacting the respondents’ rights to life, livelihood and shelter, and therefore required compliance.