Delhi HC Records Centre's Assurance on Kejriwal Residence, Scrutinizes Allotment Policy

New Delhi – The Central Government has assured the Delhi High Court that it will allot an “appropriate” official residence to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal within ten days. The assurance, delivered by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, brought a significant development in a protracted legal dispute that has placed the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs' allotment procedures under judicial scrutiny.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the matter on September 25, 2025, took the Solicitor General's statement on record, effectively binding the government to a firm timeline. The court's intervention underscores broader concerns about the transparency and consistency of allocating government accommodation, a matter Justice Datta noted requires a systemic resolution.

The case, titled Aam Aadmi Party vs. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs & Anr , has evolved beyond a simple housing request into a significant examination of administrative discretion and procedural fairness.

The Courtroom Exchange: Assurances and Apprehensions

The hearing saw Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, provide a direct commitment to the court. "He (Kejriwal) will be allotted the appropriate accommodation within 10 days from today. You may record my statement," Mehta submitted, aiming to resolve the impasse that had led to multiple court hearings.

Justice Datta accepted the assurance, stating, "I will record that appropriate accommodation will be given within 10 days. We will record your statement and pass an order." However, the court’s role extended beyond mere recording. The judge emphasized the need for a standardized protocol, observing that the current system appeared ad-hoc. In a remark with far-reaching implications, Justice Datta stated, "The practice of Ministry has to be noted. Not just this time for politician but to non politician as well. It is an issue that has to be resolved."

This observation followed a previous hearing on September 16, where the court had censured the Centre for its "free system for all" approach, sternly noting that the allocation of official residences "could not be left to discretion or whims."

Representing the AAP, Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra raised concerns about the ambiguity of the term "appropriate." He argued that Mr. Kejriwal, given his political stature as the head of a national party and a former Chief Minister, was entitled to a residence commensurate with his past accommodations, which have been Type VII or Type VIII bungalows. "They cannot downgrade me to a Type 5," Mehra contended, adding pointedly, "I’m not favoured, I’m not Bahujan Samaj Party," alluding to perceived discrepancies in allotments to different political leaders.

The Solicitor General retorted with a political jibe, remarking, "Aam Aadmi never fights for type 8," to which Mehra countered, "All this sloganeering was appropriate at elections, this is court."

Rather than adjudicating on the specific type of bungalow, Justice Datta advised a pragmatic approach, suggesting dialogue between the parties. "If you are not happy, don’t take it. The solution lies in you having a conversation with the SG," the court observed. Crucially, the bench granted liberty to the AAP and Mr. Kejriwal to approach the Ministry again if the allotted residence is unsatisfactory, keeping the door open for future legal recourse.

Background of the Litigation

The legal battle commenced after Mr. Kejriwal vacated his official Chief Ministerial residence at 6, Flagstaff Road on October 4, 2024, following his resignation. Since then, he has been residing at the official quarters of another party member.

The AAP's petition is grounded in the guidelines governing the allotment of accommodation from the general pool to national political parties. These guidelines entitle the president of a recognized national party to a government residence in Delhi, provided they do not own property in the city or have not been allotted housing in any other official capacity.

The party had specifically expressed interest in the Type VII bungalow at 35, Lodhi Estate, which was vacated by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati in May 2025. However, the Centre informed the court that this specific property had already been allotted to Union Minister of State for Finance, Pankaj Chaudhary, in July. The government maintained that political parties cannot demand a specific bungalow, as allotments are contingent on availability and the official waiting list.

This argument was met with skepticism by the court in a prior hearing, where Justice Datta had questioned the opaqueness of the process. "It is not acceptable that while passovers are sought in Court, allotments are being made outside," the judge had remarked, directing the government to submit the allotment policy, the current waiting list, and details surrounding the re-allotment of the 35, Lodhi Estate property.

Legal Implications and Broader Significance

This case serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's role in overseeing executive functions to prevent arbitrariness, a cornerstone of administrative law in India. While the allotment of government housing falls within the executive's purview, that discretion is not absolute and must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with established policies.

For legal practitioners, the proceedings highlight several key points:

1. The Weight of an SG’s Assurance: An undertaking given by the Solicitor General before a High Court is considered a solemn assurance on behalf of the government. Its recording in a judicial order makes it enforceable and provides the petitioner with a strong basis for a contempt petition if breached.

2. Judicial Review of Discretionary Powers: The court’s insistence on a clear, non-arbitrary procedure is a classic exercise of judicial review. By questioning the "whims and fancies" guiding allotments, the court is reinforcing the principle that executive action must be transparent and accountable.

3. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: While not explicitly argued, the AAP's plea for a non-downgraded accommodation touches upon the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Mr. Kejriwal, having previously occupied a certain type of residence in an official capacity, could argue an expectation of similar treatment based on precedent and his current status as the head of a national party.

4. Procedural Propriety: Justice Datta's directive for the government to place the allotment policy and waiting list on record is a significant step towards ensuring procedural propriety. It shifts the burden onto the executive to demonstrate that its decisions are rule-based rather than selective.

The court's decision to record the Centre's 10-day commitment provides an immediate, albeit temporary, resolution for the petitioner. However, the larger legal question concerning the establishment of a transparent and uniform allotment policy remains pertinent. The bench’s final detailed order, which is yet to be passed, is keenly awaited and may set a precedent for how such matters are handled in the future, impacting not just politicians but all individuals entitled to government accommodation.