Electricity Access Is Inseparable Part of Right To Life Under Article 21: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that access to electricity is not merely a statutory right but a fundamental necessity integral to the right to life. The Court emphasized that distribution licensees have a mandatory obligation to provide service connections and cannot reject applications arbitrarily or without assigning clear reasons.

Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, presiding over the matter, addressed a writ petition challenging the permanent rejection of an electricity service application by the Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd (APEPDCL). The Court observed that in an increasingly digital and technology-dependent era, the lack of electricity supply directly impacts fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, 1950.

Duty of Licensees and Consumer Rights

The Court noted that under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, distribution licensees are under a statutory mandate to provide electricity to an owner or occupier within one month of an application. This obligation is further detailed in the General Terms and Conditions of the Supply and the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards Of Performance) Regulations, 2000.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "electricity, being a basic necessity, is an integral part of “Right to Life” as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India... the right to electricity is an integral and inextricable part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and if there is any violation of the same, it affects the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the Constitution of India."

Addressing the lack of transparency in the rejection process, the Court held that the phrase "Permanently Rejected" appearing on an online portal without supporting reasons is a transgression of the principles of natural justice. It relied on Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan ( "(2010) 9 SCC 496": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 1285) to emphasize that "Reason is the soul of justice."

Directions Issued to Statutory Authorities

The Court has the following directions:

"i. The action of the 2nd respondent Corporation in permanently rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 20.09.2025 for grant of new electricity service connection bearing registration No.NSCREG03556196., is set aside."

"ii. The 2nd respondent Corporation authorities, are hereby directed to process the petitioner’s application dated 20.09.2025 bearing registration No.NSCREG03556196., afresh, on collection of charges, if any, by following the true letter and spirit of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and relevant Rules thereon, within a period of two (2) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order."

"iii. In view of the significance attached to electricity in the day-to-day lives of people as discussed (supra), this Court also deems it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to initiate all comprehensive and effective measures to implement the statutory provisions, without any retraction. Hence, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to instruct all the distribution licensees in the State of Andhra Pradesh to submit their respective comprehensive reports for every three (03) months., with particulars such as date of applications for electricity service connection, processing time and final result of the said application. Based on that, the 1st respondent shall, in turn, conduct review of the said reports and issue appropriate directions/guidelines to the distribution licensees in order to fulfil the constitutional goals as well as the statutory provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 & relevant Rules thereon., subject to the ground realities and requirements."

Background:

The petitioner, seeking to establish a small flour mill for his livelihood, applied for a Category-II electricity connection on September 20, 2025. Despite complying with all statutory requirements, including obtaining a No-Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat, the installation of the meter was allegedly stopped due to local interference. Subsequently, the petitioner found his application status marked as "Permanently Rejected" on the respondent's online portal without any communication of reasons.

The respondent corporation contended that there were pending arrears on a previous connection at the same premises registered in the name of the petitioner's wife. However, the Court found that the respondents had failed to provide evidence of these arrears or communicate them as the reason for rejection at the initial stage. Referring to K.S Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner of India., the Court noted that statutory functionaries cannot supplement their orders with fresh reasons in the shape of affidavits once a challenge is brought to court.

In its analysis, the Court cited several precedents including Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "(1996) 2 SCC 549": 1995 CaseBase(SC) 226) regarding the right to shelter and infrastructure, Dilip (Dead) through LRs. v. Satish & Ors. ( "2022 SCC OnLine SC 810": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 1244) regarding electricity as a basic amenity, and Brihanmumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission regarding the universal service obligation of licensees. The Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the rejection and ordering a fresh review of the application.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO: 8103/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:APHC:23871
Case Title: KADAGALA SRINIVAS RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. YAMINI SAHU, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): GP FOR ENERGY, Ms. K. Aishwarya Chowdary representing Sri V.V. SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(AP) 196