Right To Electricity Protected U/Art 21, Connection Can't Be Denied Merely Due To Property Ownership Dispute: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that access to electricity constitutes an important element of a dignified life and it derives constitutional protection through Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court added that if the applicant is willing to furnish the prescribed indemnity form and comply with applicable requirements, the electricity connection cannot be denied merely because a dispute over ownership of the premises is pending before a civil court.

A bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made these observations while holding that access to electricity has a substantial constitutional connection with the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21, as it enables individuals to live with human dignity.

The bench further observed that the constitutional protection guards a person against "arbitrary, discriminatory or legally impermissible denial of access", particularly where electricity is necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of life, shelter and human dignity.

The Court thus allowed a writ petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Mishra, who had challenged the rejection of his application for a fresh domestic electricity connection at a property in Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh.

The petitioner (Mishra) is residing at a property, related to which, a title and ownership dispute is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli.

His application for a fresh domestic electricity connection was rejected in July this year by the officials on the ground that he had not produced documents such as a registered sale deed, succession certificate or an NOC to establish his rights in the property.

Challenging the rejection, the petitioner moved the HC, relying on Clause 4.4 of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, which permits an applicant to furnish an indemnity form under Annexure 4.2.

Examining the relevant provision, the Court observed that, apart from documents establishing ownership, the Code recognizes proof of occupancy, including a valid power of attorney, the latest rent-paid receipt, a valid lease deed or an indemnity form.

The bench said that even a person who may not be the owner of the land could be entitled to a fresh electricity connection if willing to pay outstanding dues and furnish the indemnity bond.

The private respondent opposed the petition while arguing that the petitioner was not the owner and that the pending civil suit prevented the grant of an electricity connection.

Rejecting this as a sufficient ground by itself, the Court observed that the electricity authority's inquiry is ordinarily directed towards determining the applicant's occupation and compliance with the applicable statutory and technical requirements, rather than adjudicating private title disputes

The bench explained that the expression 'life' under Article 21 is not confined to mere physical existence but encompasses conditions that enable an individual to live with human dignity.

It noted that electricity facilitates essential activities, including lighting, access to water, cooking, refrigeration, communication, education, healthcare and livelihood.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1995), which recognized the right to shelter as an essential component of the right to life, the Court observed that electricity may operate as an important enabling facility associated with meaningful habitation.

At the same time, the Court clarified that constitutional protection does not amount to an unconditional right to free or unlimited electricity.

"The entitlement remains subject to the requirements of the applicable statutory framework, including lawful charges, technical conditions, safety requirements and other legitimate regulatory requirements. What the constitutional principle guards against is arbitrary, discriminatory or legally impermissible denial of access, particularly where electricity is necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of life, shelter and human dignity", the bench remarked.

Therefore, finding the rejection order illegal and arbitrary, the Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Executive Engineer for fresh consideration.

It directed the authority to decide the application expeditiously within 10 days. The Bench ordered that if the application is allowed, the authority must provide the electricity connection forthwith.