Oral political assurances are unenforceable under promissory estoppel absent formal executive instructions or written policy decisions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in March 2020, the Chief Minister of Delhi, in a press conference held on March 29, 2020, appealed to landlords not to force impoverished tenants to pay rent

He stated that if a tenant was unable to pay due to lack of means, "the Government will pay for it"

On the same day, the Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) issued Order No. 122-A, proscribing landlords from demanding rent for one month or evicting migrant workers

Six petitioners (five tenants and one landlord) sought a writ of mandamus to compel the State to fulfill the Chief Minister's assurance

A learned Single Judge ruled in favor of the petitioners on July 22, 2021, holding the promise enforceable under promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, and directed the Government to take a decision on implementation

The State appealed this decision

The Court primarily applied the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, which requires a clear and unequivocal promise made with the intent to create legal relations, upon which a party acts to their detriment

It relied on Union of India v. Ganesh Rice Mills, established that a Minister's statement on the floor of the House does not constitute an enforceable promise

It further applied the principle from State of Karnataka v. K.K. Mohandas that estoppel does not operate at the level of government policy

Regarding Legitimate Expectation, the Court cited Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, holding that the doctrine provides procedural protection but is not a substantive legal right or an independent basis for judicial review

The Court also considered the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, noting that executive power must be exercised within the bounds of statutory guidelines

The Court analyzed the distinction between political campaign rhetoric and statements made by an incumbent Chief Minister, acknowledging that the latter carries significant weight but is not automatically a "promise" in law

The Court found that for a statement to be enforceable against the State, it must be reduced to a formal document—such as an Office Memorandum, Notification, or Circular—reflecting a deliberate policy decision

The CM's statement had two parts: (1) a proscription against eviction, which was supported by DDMA Order 122-A, and (2) an assurance that the State would pay the rent, which lacked any statutory or executive documentation

The Court reasoned that under the Disaster Management Act and Epidemic Diseases Act, while the State could take measures to prevent the spread of disease, the assurance to pay rent from the exchequer was not supported by any existing guidelines or financial assessment

Consequently, the lack of a formal "policy" meant there was no legal liability that a mandamus could compel the State to perform

Under DDMA Order 122-A, landlords are prohibited from recovering rent from impoverished migrant tenants for the specific duration of the lockdown

The State Government retains the discretion to take a policy decision regarding the assurance but cannot be judicially compelled to do so

The Court set aside the direction requiring the State to frame a specific policy or implementation scheme based solely on the press conference statement