BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Union of India 2025 INSC 937 -Electricity Act
Electricity Act 2003 - I. Electricity is a public good. Its generation, transmission, and distribution are statutorily regulated to ensure access to supply, on a non-rival and non-exclusive basis. II. Being a material resource within Article 39 of the Constitution of India, Part-IV of the Constitution must inform the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. III. The statutory regulators, i.e. the Central and State Regulatory Commissions alongwith Union and State Governments and other stakeholders are equally bound by the mandate under Part-IV of the Constitution for its equitable distribution. This duty is predicated on the independent, efficient, objective functioning of the electricity commissions. They must guard themselves against ‘regulatory failure’ and in particular ‘regulatory capture’. The interpretation of the powers and function of the Regulatory Commissions have to be such that there is no regulatory vacuum, in that there is no unallocated residue of power of regulation. IV. Tariff determination is a regulatory function and it is the exclusive province of the Regulatory Commissions. Tariff determination involves multiple variables requiring the regulators to act with expertise and also with certain amount of flexibility. Creation of regulatory asset is a ‘measure’ that the Commission adopts for good governance of tariff. It is also a recognition of revenue recoverable by distribution companies, and as such, it is an enforceable right, though only through tariff determination for later years. This ‘measure’ gives rise to correlative obligations of the Regulatory Commissions to manage it efficiently and allow easy liquidation. V. Disproportionate increase and long pending regulatory asset depict a ‘regulatory failure’. It has serious consequences on all stakeholders and the ultimate burden is only on the consumer. VI. Laws encompassing the creation, continuation, and liquidation of a ‘regulatory asset’ are located in the Act, National Tariff Plan and Policy, Rules, and Regulations made under the Act, as interpreted by the APTEL. The combined effect of this legal regime is the statutory obligation on the regulator(s). VII. Ineffective and inefficient functioning of the Regulatory Commissions, coupled with acting under dictation can lead to regulatory failure. The commissions are accountable for their decisions, and they are subject to judicial review. VIII. Apart from examining the legality and propriety of the orders of the Commissions in appeal, the APTEL has extraordinary powers under Section 121 to issue orders, instructions or directions for effective enforcement of the regulatory regime. This is one of the most important powers allocated to APTEL by the Parliament. IX. We have affirmed the limits of creation, continuation and liquidation of the regulatory asset, recognised the obligations of the Regulatory Commissions, and directed that they will be accountable and subject to such orders, instructions or directions as the APTEL may issue in this regard under Section 121. X. The regulatory regime under the Act is a complete code enunciating rights, prescribing obligations, and laying down the mechanism for course correction. The effectiveness of these laws will be reflected in the will to enforce them. Directions issued: (i) As a first principle, tariff shall be cost-reflective; (ii) The revenue gap between the approved ARR and the estimated annual revenue from approved tariff may be in exceptional circumstances; (iii) The regulatory asset should not exceed a reasonable percentage, which percentage can be arrived on the basis of Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules that prescribes 3% of the ARR as the guiding principle; (iv) If a regulatory asset is created, it must be liquidated within a period of 3 years, taking Rule 23 as the guiding principle; (v) The existing regulatory asset must be liquidated in a maximum of 4 years starting from 01.04.2024, taking Rule 23 as the guiding principle; (vi) Regulatory Commissions must provide the trajectory and roadmap for liquidation of the existing regulatory asset, which will include a provision for dealing with carrying costs. Regulatory Commissions must also undertake strict and intensive audit of the circumstances in which the distribution companies have continued without recovery of the regulatory asset; (vii) Regulatory Commissions shall in general follow the principles governing creation, continuation and liquidation of the regulatory asset, as laid down in paragraph 70, and also abide by the directions of the APTEL summarised in paragraph 69.8; (viii) The APTEL shall invoke its powers under Section 121 and issue such orders, instructions or directions as it may deem fit to the Regulatory Commissions for performance of their duties with respect to regulatory asset as enunciated by us in this judgment and as per the orders of the APTEL in O.P. No. 1/2011 dated 11.11.2011 and O.P. Nos. 1 and 2/2012 dated 14.11.2013. .
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 937
Coram
- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
- Justice Sandeep Mehta
Judgment Date
- August 6, 2025
Caselaws and Citations
The judgment refers to several important cases, including:
- Tamil Nadu Electricity Consumers’ Association v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Appeal Nos. 192 and 206 of 2010, APTEL order dated 28.07.2011
- Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Ltd., (2009) 16 SCC 659
- BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2023) 4 SCC 788
- Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2023) 11 SCC 1
- PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 4 SCC 603
- Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2015) 12 SCC 611
- West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd., (2002) 8 SCC 715
- Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Jhabua Power Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2819
- Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. v. Sai Renewable Power (P) Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 34
- Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI, (2023) 1 SCC 329
- SEBI v. Mega Corporation, (2023) 12 SCC 802
- Lifecare Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 269
- Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 673
- Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788
- K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (2023) 14 SCC 431
- In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 78
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Electricity Act, 2003 (including Sections 2, 3, 12, 14, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 107, 108, 110, 111, 120, 121, 125, 142, 176, 178, 180, 181)
- Indian Electricity Act, 1910
- Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948
- Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998
- Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000
- Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001
- National Electricity Policy, 2005
- National Tariff Policy, 2006 and 2016
- DERC Tariff Determination Regulations, 2007, 2011, 2017
- Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (Rule 23)
- Electricity (Late Payment Surcharge) Rules, 2022
- Constitution of India (Article 32, Article 39, Part IV)
- MSME Act (in context of Lifecare Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India)
