Six petitioners, five claiming to be tenants and the other a landlord, have landed CM Arvind Kejriwal in a spot of bother. Delhi HC has ordered the state government to take a decision on implementing the CM’s promise at a press conference – held during the 2020 migrant exodus – to pay rents for those unable to do so. The court said a promise/assurance/representation given by the CM “amounts to an enforceable promise”. It noted that “a reasonable citizen would believe that the CM has spoken on behalf of his government” and a CM’s solemn pledge cast a duty on the Delhi government to take a stand on enforcing the promise or not.
This is troubling judicial intervention. Judges should not hold netas to their political promises – especially when the judiciary is struggling to hold leaders accountable for failing India’s umpteen laws. The complexity of democracy, resource limitations, and demands of the political marketplace are such that politicians often over-promise, sometimes incredibly so. Remember ‘garibi hatao’ and depositing Rs 15 lakh in everyone’s bank account, to take just two examples. Kejriwal’s promise, in fact, was made not in an election but to try and reverse the course of a human tragedy.
Plus, lofty promises aren’t all bad. If politicians are upping expectations among voters, it follows there will be pressure on them to deliver. Disappointing voters has pitfalls: payback awaits on polling day. While dismissing a 2013 PIL opposing Jayalalithaa’s freebies to voters, SC had directed Election Commission to frame guidelines on the content of party manifestos. That exercise went nowhere, thankfully. Umpiring political promises is needless, futile overreach. Politics is the art of the possible. When politicians make impossible promises, they do so by calculating risks and rewards. Voters decide whether the risk was worth it. Courts should stay out of this.
