{"id":251621,"date":"2021-07-23T09:00:25","date_gmt":"2021-07-23T03:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=251621"},"modified":"2021-07-30T11:16:06","modified_gmt":"2021-07-30T05:46:06","slug":"promise-by-chief-minister-in-press-conference-enforceable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/23\/promise-by-chief-minister-in-press-conference-enforceable\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether a Chief Minister’s promise to its citizens is enforceable? Succinct report in light of Delhi CM’s ‘Promise’ | Highlight on Doctrines of Promissory Estoppel & Legitimate Expectations"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>Prathiba M. Singh, J., while quoting that \u2018Promises are meant to be broken\u2019 stated that the 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.<\/p>\n

Promise by Chief Minister of Delhi<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Petitioners filed the instant petition seeking enforcement of CM of Delhi\u2019s promise.<\/p>\n

Petitioners sought the recovery\/payment\/refund of the monthly rental amount, as per the promise made by the CM.<\/p>\n

What was the promise?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

CM, Delhi in a press conference on 29-3-2020, amidst the pandemic requested all the landlords to postpone the demand\/collection of rent from those tenants who were poor and poverty-stricken.<\/p>\n

CM, in the press conference, had made a clear promise that if any tenant is unable to pay the rent due to poverty, the Government would pay his\/her rent on their behalf.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026a solemn assurance was given that the Government would take care of the tenants.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Bench on perusal of various decisions of the Courts laid down the salient principles of the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation:<\/p>\n

Principles from decisions in India:<\/strong><\/p>\n

In India, the two doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation have been moulded and expanded further, in order to suit the economic and social conditions prevalent in India. Some of the principles that emerge are:<\/p>\n

i) \u00a0If a representation is made by the Government, the question is whether it should be allowed to go back on it and whether such an act of resiling from the said assurance would constitute legal fraud.<\/p>\n

ii) \u00a0It is necessary to promote honesty and good faith in governance. Therefore, if a promise has been made, the Government has a duty to fulfil the same.<\/p>\n

iii) \u00a0Executive necessity does not constitute an adequate reason to not give effect to a representation.<\/p>\n

iv) \u00a0If the promise made is clear and unequivocal then the Court can enforce it.<\/p>\n

v) \u00a0If the promise is acted upon by the promisee, the need to enforce the said promise becomes stronger. There need not be any detriment caused. Mere action on the promise is sufficient for cause of action to arise.<\/p>\n

vi) \u00a0Under the traditional law of contracts, unless and until, the terms are agreed upon, there would be no contract. However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an exception, i.e., no contract is required to enforce a promise made by the Government, if the Government made the same consciously, with an intention for it to be acted upon by the citizen.<\/p>\n

vii) \u00a0It is important to bridge the gap between law and morality and these two doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation are judicial contributions in the said direction.<\/p>\n

viii) \u00a0Relief based on legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel can be refused only if it is unequitable to hold the Government to its promise.<\/p>\n

ix) \u00a0If public interest would be prejudiced by enforcing the said promise, only then, relief may be refused. The only exception is overriding public interest or when enforcement is unfair or contrary to public interest. However, the Government would have to disclose the facts that would exempt it from enforcing the said promise and a mere claim in respect of the same would not be sufficient to establish overriding public interest.<\/p>\n

x) \u00a0A mere ipse dixit <\/em>would not work, and the Government cannot presume a self-exemption. Only a Court can grant exemption from liability for not adhering to the assurance, provided the Government shows proper justification.<\/p>\n

xi) \u00a0High ranking officials who may have made representations or given assurances or promises, can, due to the position they hold, bind the Government to their statements.<\/p>\n

xii) \u00a0It is presumed that once a representation is made by a high- ranking official, the same is within the scope of its authority.<\/p>\n

xiii) \u00a0If the representation or promise made or is prohibited by law then it cannot be enforced.<\/p>\n

xiv) \u00a0The relief that may be given by the Court, in the case of an unconscionable departure from a promise is flexible, so as to remedy the injustice caused.<\/p>\n

xv) \u00a0The mere non-issuance of a notification would not stand in the way of granting relief, if the facts justify the same, as the same would only be a ministerial act.<\/p>\n

xvi) \u00a0Both these doctrines have to be expansively interpreted, as a recognition of the doctrine of fairness and non-arbitrariness.<\/p>\n

xvii) \u00a0The legitimate expectation of a citizen ought to be considered and given due weight in decision making. It is a relevant factor for consideration in the decision-making process.<\/p>\n

xviii) \u00a0Failure to adhere to a promise without adequate justification violates the trust between the Government and the citizen.<\/p>\n

xix) \u00a0The broad exceptions to not grant relief on the basis of these principles would be – mistake, or if the same is unfair and contrary to public interest.<\/p>\n

xx) \u00a0The doctrine of legitimate expectation is broader in its scope than the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and it may be based on past practice of the authorities. It need not involve a specific statement and is meant to ensure non-arbitrariness in State action.<\/p>\n

xxi) \u00a0The doctrine of legitimate expectation and its enforcement is an integral part of non-arbitrariness and non-abuse of power as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Now, moving on to analysing the facts<\/strong>, Bench noted that the address by the CM in the press conference has three dimensions:<\/p>\n