The Kerala High Court has issued an interim order staying the operation, implementation, and further proceedings under the “Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy and Related Matters) Regulations, 2025” for a period of one month. The stay was granted in response to a petition filed by the Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumer Forum – Kerala and its president, who challenged the validity of the regulations on both procedural and substantive grounds.
The petitioners, representing domestic rooftop-solar power users (prosumers) in Kerala, contended that the Regulatory Commission violated mandatory consultative and transparency processes mandated under the Electricity Act of 2003 and the Commission’s own Conduct of Business Regulations. They argued that the Regulations were finalised and notified despite assurances by the Commission that public hearings would be held only after a meaningful period of stakeholder consultation. According to the petition, the Commission had earlier committed to issue the notification only after hearing objections; yet the regulations were published prematurely.
A key allegation is that the Commission has been captured by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB) through appointments of former KSEB officials or individuals closely connected to the political executive, thereby undermining the independence of the regulator and constituting a nexus favouring conventional utility interests over solar-prosumers. The petition further alleged that the regulatory scheme was designed to discourage rooftop solar generation and bolster the utility’s control, thereby saddling consumers with higher cross-subsidies and inflated tariffs.
On procedural grounds, the petitioners pointed out that the Draft Regulations of 2025 were published via a notice, inviting objections and promising public hearings, but the mode of hearing was indicated to be online only and the venue and dates for physical hearings were not adequately notified. They asserted that earlier consultations under the Commission had been hybrid or physical, at multiple district-centres, enabling broader participation, whereas the present process confined participation to online modes, which they viewed as exclusionary given the digital-divide. They urged that physical public hearings must be held in multiple locations across the State before finalisation of such impactful regulations.
In its interim order the High Court observed that the petition raises “serious issues of legality, fairness and transparency” in the rule-making process of the regulator. The Court directed the State Government, the Regulatory Commission and KSEB to file counter-affidavits addressing the allegations and the processes followed in framing the Regulations. Meanwhile, it stayed enforcement of the Regulations to maintain the status quo for the next month.
The Court’s intervention signals a caution to regulators that even in technical domains like electricity regulation, stakeholder consultation, transparency in rule-making, and regulatory independence are critical. The decision also highlights growing tensions between the interests of prosumers (rooftop solar owners) and distribution utilities, and the role of courts in supervising regulatory processes when procedural fairness is questioned.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.