Latest News Headlines

Assurance given by a CM amounts to enforceable promise: Delhi HC on Arvind Kejriwal’s word on govt paying rent for poor tenants


The Delhi High Court on Thursday dominated that an assurance given by a chief minister “clearly amounts to an enforceable promise”, the implementation of which ought to be thought of by the state, and directed the Delhi authorities to determine on the assertion CM Arvind Kejriwal made final yr that the state can be paying the rent if any tenant is unable to pay the identical.

Justice Prathiba M Singh in an order stated that good governance requires that guarantees made to residents by those that govern should not damaged with out legitimate and justifiable causes.

“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,” stated the court docket.

According to the petition filed by 5 daily-wage staff and a landlord, Kejriwal on March 29 in a press convention requested all landlords to postpone the gathering of rent from these tenants “who are poor and poverty-stricken” and likewise promised that if any tenant is unable to pay the rent due to poverty, the federal government would pay on their behalf.

Directing the Delhi authorities to determine inside six weeks, the court docket additional requested the state to keep in mind the bigger curiosity of the individuals to whom the advantages have been supposed to be prolonged within the assertion given by the CM. “Upon the said decision being taken, the GNCTD would frame a clear policy in this regard,” it stated.

The court docket stated that when the CM had made a solemn assurance, there was a responsibility forged on the Delhi authorities to take a stand as to whether or not to implement the stated promise or not and if that’s the case on what grounds.

“It cannot be held that there was no expectation or anticipation by the citizens that the CM’s promise would be given effect to. The doctrine of promissory estoppel also being an equitable doctrine, equity requires this Court to hold the GNCTD responsible for the said indecision or lack of action, on the promise/assurance given by the CM,” reads the judgement.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.