By: Ritwik Sharma
INTRODUCTION
With India’s digital revolution in education and healthcare, knowledge dissemination and access to employment have increasingly shifted online. A stable electricity supply in every household has thus become indispensable to achieving a decent standard of living. Recognising this, several High Courts have noted that inadequate access to electricity undermines equal opportunities. However, despite its cardinal role in modern life, electricity continues to be regulated and treated as any other commodity, rather than as a Fundamental Right.
Within the Indian constitutional framework, universal access to electricity can arguably be seen as a facet of the Right to Shelter, which is embedded in the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In Chameli Singh v. State of UP, the Supreme Court recognised the Right to Shelter as integral to the Right to Life and expressly included electricity under its ambit. However, the question of whether access to affordable and reliably consistent electricity is a Fundamental Right remains unanswered.
This blog explores the statutory framework governing electricity in India and examines the legislative intent behind its regulatory treatment. It further analyses recent judicial stances to argue for recognising access to electricity as a universally guaranteed right under Article 21.
JUDICIAL SHIFT FROM A SERVICE-CENTRIC VIEW TO A RIGHTS-CENTRIC ONE
There is a noticeable shift in the judicial perception of the status of electricity. Moving away from considering it a taxable good, to considering it an essential service, and now recognising its access as a right, this shift has major implications for how electricity is regulated and governed, influencing decisions about its pricing, access, and distribution.
Historically, the Supreme Court had categorised electricity as “goods” for tax purposes, thus viewing it as a mere movable property. However, the grouping of electricity with water under Articles 277 and 278(1) of the Constitution, referring to exemptions from state taxation on electricity in certain cases, does suggest that electricity is an essential good.
Nevertheless, reflecting the goods-centric perspective, older statutes like the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 did not classify electricity as an essential commodity. However, recent legislative developments have considered electricity a service instead of a commodity. For instance, Section 20 of the recent Model Tenancy Act, 2021, and the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, prohibit the cutting off or withholding of electricity by any party, recognising it as an essential service.
Despite this shift, the legal interpretation of “service” in India remains nuanced, particularly when applied to commercial versus non-commercial usage. Under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the term “service” encompasses activities of an industrial or commercial nature, including the supply of electrical or other energy. Similarly, under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, “service” expressly includes the provision of facilities in connection with the supply of electrical or other energy, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge. Consequently, electricity provided under government schemes at no charge cannot be classified as a “service” in the non-commercial context, further distinguishing it from strictly commercial usage.
However, recently, the Supreme Court observed, “it is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived.” In the context of a tenant’s right to enjoy electricity despite the refusal by the landlord to issue a no-objection certificate (hereinafter, ‘NOC’), the Court adopted a rights-centric view of electricity by considering it a basic amenity, rather than merely treating it as an ordinary commodity. This view has increasingly been endorsed by other High Courts.
LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL INTENT TO PROVIDE UNIVERSAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
In the Electricity Act, 2003, the legislative intent behind Sections 43 and 44, reflects a clear mandate for universal electricity supply. In this context, the case of N. R. Sharma v. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution emphasises this intent by demonstrating that the Act envisions the supply of electricity as a statutory obligation rather than a discretionary service. For instance, Section 43 of the Act, titled “Duty to Supply on Request,” uses the term “shall,” which imposes a mandatory obligation on distribution licensees to supply electricity to any owner or occupier of premises. This broad definition includes not only property owners but also tenants and other lawful occupants, thus extending the right to access electricity to a wide range of individuals.
Moreover, Section 43(3) imposes a penalty of ₹1,000 per day for failure to comply with this duty, eliminating any discretion for delay or refusal by distributors. This penalty mechanism reinforces the notion that supplying electricity is a statutory obligation, thereby establishing electricity as an essential service, rather than a negotiable commodity. Furthermore, the essential nature of electricity is apparent in Section 44 which outlines very limited exceptions to the duty to supply. This narrow scope of exceptions reflects the Legislature’s view of electricity as an indispensable service that can only be disrupted under exceptional conditions.
The courts have also increasingly acknowledged electricity’s essential nature by offering special protection if its access is restricted, with a series of recent judgments demonstrating that such protection outweighs a legal owner’s right to disconnect electricity in inhabited places. In Dilip (Dead) Th. Lrs. v. Satish, the Supreme Court ruled that electricity cannot be denied to a tenant simply because the landlord refuses to issue an NOC, holding, that “electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived.” Further, in Real Anchors Projects LLP v. NCT of Delhi, the Court held that the legal occupant cannot be deprived of electricity on similar grounds even if disputes exist over the ownership of the property where an electricity connection is sought. Such a position is purely rights-centric as it treats electricity differently from other goods and services by putting the consumer’s needs and interests first.
The judiciary’s emphasis on protecting the consumer’s right to electricity is most evident in Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that electricity boards cannot arbitrarily disconnect electricity supply, even when the consumer defaults on payment. The Court mandated that the board follow due process, including issuing a 15-day notice and allowing the consumer to deposit the disputed amount under protest. This prioritisation of the consumer due to electricity’s essential nature marks a jurisprudential shift, moving from treating electricity as a commodity for sale to recognising it as an inviolable right. Therefore, as long as the petitioner remains in possession of the suit property, electricity cannot be denied, simply because its uninterrupted access is now considered a basic right.
RIGHT TO SHELTER: DOES IT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ELECTRICITY SUPPLY?
The right to shelter, embodied by the Hindi phrase “roti-kapda-makaan,” is a well-recognised Fundamental Right ensured by Article 21, read with Article 19(1)(e). In Chameli Singh v. State of UP, the Supreme Court held, “right to shelter includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities.” The express inclusion of electricity as a facet of the right to shelter suggests that its access is a recognised Fundamental Right under the Right to Life. The Madras High Court, in T.M. Prakash v. The District Collector, further extended this interpretation, by explicitly asserting that access to electricity should be considered a part of the right to life under Article 21. The underlying rationale is that while basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing may ensure mere survival, a truly meaningful life requires more to enable individuals to live with dignity.
A rights-based interpretation of electricity access in the context of Chameli Singh v. State of UP would enable citizens to claim affordable and reliable electricity supply as a matter of right. This approach implies that individuals in remote, unelectrified villages, for example, could move the court through a writ of mandamus to demand access to electricity as a Fundamental Right. Consequently, the government may be held accountable for violating this Fundamental Right if it has not taken adequate steps to ensure such access.
CONCLUSION
In the evolving interpretation of the Right to Life within India’s welfare state, the supply of electricity is indispensable for maintaining a decent living standard, and for the meaningful realisation of the full scope of this Fundamental Right in the twenty-first century. Denial of electricity, whether by private or governmental authorities, should thus be seen as a violation of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution, as it restricts access to education, suitable employment, and other socio-economic rights. Without ensuring access to electricity, achieving constitutional goals becomes impossible.
The Calcutta High Court, in St. Mary’s Technological Foundation v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, has recently summarised the above discussion by holding, “it is well-settled that the right to get electricity has been read as a component of Article 21 of the Constitution, conferring the right to life.” Such judicial positions reinforce the view that access to electricity is no longer merely a utility or service, but a Fundamental Right. Consequently, any deprivation of this right allows individuals to seek constitutional remedies through writ petitions under Article 32 in the Supreme Court or Article 226 in the High Courts. Thus, it is time that access to electricity is considered a Fundamental Right essential for ensuring equal opportunities and the attainment of a dignified life.
(Ritwik Sharma is a law undergraduate at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala. The author may be contacted via mail at ritwiksharma22121@rgnul.ac.in)
Cite as: Ritwik Sharma, From Commodity to Fundamental Right: Is Denial of Access to Electricity a Violation of Article 21?, 27th January 2025, <https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2025/01/27/from-commodity-to-fundamental-right-is-denial-of-access-to-electricity-a-violation-of-article-21/> date of access.