The Supreme Court Dismissed The Appeal Seeking The Stay Of Delhi High Court's Decision

The court merely stated in its judgement that it is rejecting the case because it is an appeal against an interlocutory order of a division bench of the HC in an appeal against another single bench order. The order stated that the case for intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution has been adequately out because the Special Leave Petition is directed against an interlocutory decision issued by the Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal against the Single Judge's verdict.

The SLP challenged the HC's Division Bench ruling of September 27, 2021, which stayed the Single Bench order of July 22, which had determined that the government was obligated by the CM's commitment.

The Single Judge stated that a remark made in a consciously planned press conference against the backdrop of the lockdown and "mass exodus" of migrant workers cannot be dismissed, and that the assurance was not made as aspect of any election rally.

This court believes that the CM's representation obviously amounts to an enforceable guarantee, the government's implementation of which should be reviewed. The Single-Judge had held that "good governance demands that pledges made to citizens by those in power not be breached without valid and justifiable reasons.

Citizens have a reasonable expectation that the CM is aware of the context in which such a promise is made, the number of individuals who will be affected, and the financial ramifications of such a promise/assurance. The report stated that comment was not made by a government functionary at a lower level in the hierarchy who would be unaware of such information.

The petitioners claimed that on March 29, 2020, Kejriwal sought that all landlords postpone the requirement or collection of rent from tenants who are poor and poverty-stricken and that if any tenant has been unable to pay the rent due to impoverishment, the government would charge on their behalf.