The Delhi High Court has told political leaders that they must honour the promises they make

It took 89 pages of a Delhi High Court judgment to tell politicians holding high positions in Governments that they cannot go on making promises to people and not honour these. The judgment, in a case relating to a promise made by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, sends the message that it is important to bridge the gap between law and morality and let the authorities, who are either elected to public positions or who hold positions of power, realise that they “are answerable to the people, especially once they undertake or agree to do or not to do a particular thing” and that the citizens would expect that the Government would implement the promises made. The judgment, by Justice Prathiba M Singh, opens with a telling comment that reflects the mood of the society: “The saying ‘Promises are meant to be broken’ is well known in the social context.” The judgment unambiguously says that promises made by the Government or its officials are “judicially enforceable” if these are broken. The judgment reminds the political leaders of things enshrined in the business of governance but forgotten in the melee of politics. One is that good governance requires the said trust to be maintained between those who govern and those who are governed. Two, the sustenance of this trust coupled with the legal certainty of an assurance given, cements the relationship between the citizen and the Government.

Three, citizens repose a lot of trust in a promise made by those who hold Government positions and an assurance given is like an undertaking that is compatible with public duty. One powerful conclusion is derived from the judgment: Once a representation is made by a high-ranking official, it comes within the scope of its authority. It will have a far-reaching impact on the Indian polity which is used to most politicians in power resorting to populism as forethought and governance as an afterthought. A cursory glance through a day’s newspapers will throw up scores of promises made by elected representatives of the people that are meant to remain unfulfilled. The present case relates to some poor labourers petitioning the court that Kejriwal should be asked to fulfil his promise of paying the house rent on their behalf if they were unable to pay it because of COVID-19 exigencies. Kejriwal did make that promise in March 2020 but did not pursue the matter further. The court correctly observes, in the context of the case, “that ‘puffing’ which may be permissible in commercial advertising, ought not to be recognisable and permissible in governance”. The judgment is a serious caution to politicians for whom people are merely voters, not citizens. There are millions of political and electoral promises that remain ignored because there is no law to punish politicians, in power or seeking to be in power, who routinely evade accountability. The judgment should prod those in power to desist from playing with people’s legitimate expectations.