A March 2020 assurance by then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal that his government would pay rent for tenants unable to do so during the COVID-19 lockdown has come under sharp judicial scrutiny, with the Delhi High Court recording its surprise at the Delhi government’s attempt to distance itself from the Chief Minister’s own statement.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla on 6 April, while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi against a Single Judge order dated 22 July 2021, noted a clear inconsistency between the public assurance made by Kejriwal and the stand taken by the government led by him in court at the time.
Kejriwal is no longer in office, having lost the Delhi Assembly election held in January 2025. However, both the assurance in question and the legal position taken before the court originated during his tenure as Chief Minister.
The matter reached the Division Bench after the Single Judge had held that the assurance made by the Chief Minister was enforceable in law and directed the government to take a decision on its implementation. That finding was challenged in appeal by the Delhi government under Kejriwal.
The case originated from a writ petition filed by six individuals, led by Najma, a tenant, along with other daily wage labourers—who said they were unable to pay rent during the lockdown due to acute financial distress—and one landlord. All sought a direction that the Delhi government honour the assurance made by Kejriwal and pay the rent on behalf of those unable to do so.
The controversy traces back to 29 March 2020, when Kejriwal, then serving as Chief Minister, addressed a press conference and made the following statement: “A few days ago, I had asked the landlords to postpone the rent of impoverished tenants unable to pay rent for 2-3 months and not take immediate payment. Today, I am appealing to you and the landlords of entire Delhi—if you consider me your son or brother then all the landlords must talk to their tenants and ask them to rest assured that you are with them and won’t force them to pay rent. Today, all of you must go and give assurance to them. There has been news from some places that a few landlords are forcing their tenants due to which they are evacuating and leaving. Please don’t force them. Kindly postpone their rent. In a month or two when this Corona… after this entire situation is over, if a tenant has been unable to pay rent due to poverty, I assure you the Government will pay for it. I am talking about those tenants who may be unable to pay some of their rent due to lack of means. However, no landlord will force them right now and if they do so then the Government will take strict action against them.”
The statement was made at a time when migrant workers and daily wage earners were facing extreme distress, and it was framed in categorical terms, without any visible qualification or caveat.
For the petitioners, particularly the daily wage labourers, the assurance was not abstract. It directly addressed their immediate inability to pay rent and was understood by them as a commitment from the State as it came from a sitting Chief Minister on a formal public platform.
When no policy followed, they approached the court seeking enforcement of that assurance.
However, in its counteraffidavit before the Single Judge, the Delhi government, functioning under Kejriwal at the time, took a sharply different position. It argued: “Statements made by political personalities cannot be enforced through the judicial process if not backed by any policy decision.”
The affidavit further warned that allowing such claims would “open floodgates” of litigation based on statements made by political leaders.
This stand was taken by the same government that was functioning under Kejriwal when the assurance had been made.
The Division Bench recorded: “We find such a stand truly surprising, coming from the executive which was… still functioning under the Chief Minister whose statement was in issue.”
The observation underlines the core issue in the case: a categorical assurance made in official capacity being subsequently treated by the same government as a non-binding political statement.
The court ultimately held that the assurance could not be enforced in law, as it had never been translated into a formal policy, notification or executive decision. Kejriwal, though he made a promise which was relied on by thousands, didn’t file any written order which would have given the promise any legal sanctity.
At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the assurance could be treated as a mere statement by a politician, observing that a statement made by a sitting Chief Minister on a public platform is qualitatively different and cannot be lightly dismissed.
The judgement also noted the absence of any material or order indicating that the financial or logistical implications of such a commitment made by Kejriwal had been examined.
Legal practitioners say the case exposes a deeper issue. “Here you had poor daily wage earners approaching the court because they believed a clear assurance made by a sitting Chief Minister during a crisis,” said a senior advocate. “Yet, in court, the government reduces that assurance to a generic statement by a political personality. That disconnect is stark.”
Another practitioner added that the absence of accountability remains troubling. “On a strict legal test, the court is right, but that does not answer whether such a statement should have been made in the first place without policy support,” the lawyer said. “If a promise made from the highest executive office can later be defended by the same government that made it as a non-binding political statement, it raises questions about the boundary between political speech and executive responsibility,” he added.
For the petitioners, including Najma, the outcome comes as a disappointment despite more than five years of legal battle.
