$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19 March 2026 Pronounced on: 6 April 2026 + LPA 349/2021, CM APPL. 33731/2021 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC CIVIL, GNCTD, Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Mr. Aryaman Vachher, Advocates versus NAJMA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT

06.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

A. The lis

1. This case requires us to revisit, painfully, a dark period in our history – the COVID-19 pandemic. It throws up, for consideration, the issue of whether an assurance extended by the Chief Minister of Delhi, in a press conference, as a step towards enforcement of the restrictions on public movement of persons put in place in the wake of COVID, is unenforceable in law, absent a formal written policy decision to that effect.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court has answered the issue in the negative, invoking the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The Delhi Government¹ is in appeal.

B. Facts

3. COVID struck India in March 2020. In the wake of the calamity, the likes of which had not been seen in foreseeable history earlier and, hopefully, would never have to be seen in future, the Government, both at the Centre and State level, put into effect a slew of measures to ensure minimal exposure of the populace to the pandemic and to persuade all to remain indoors as far as possible. As is well known, the Hon’ble Prime Minister himself came on air to prohibit movement of persons outside their homes for the period 25 March 2020 to 31 May 2020. It merits mention, while the lockdown was relaxed in phases, the proscription on inter-state travel was lifted with effect from 1 June 2020.

4. State Governments were not lagging behind. The then Chief Minister of Delhi, Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, addressed the public through a press conference held on 29 March 2020, and the dispute, in these proceedings, relates to a single utterance made by him during the press conference. We deem it appropriate to reproduce, in vernacular as well as in English, the statement made by the Chief Minister, around which the dispute revolves:

In vernacular

1 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, hereinafter referred to as “the State”

In English "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 and let's assume after this entire mess 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."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Do the italicized words in the above statement of the Chief Minister constitute a promise, enforceable, proprio vigore, against the State and in favour of citizens? As we have already noted, a learned Single Judge of this Court has, vide judgment dated 22 July 2021, answered the question in the affirmative, relying on the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

6. Following the conclusion that the words of the Chief Minister, as italicized above, constituted an enforceable promise in law, the impugned judgment concludes with the following directions:

“110. In view of the abov