Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji directed the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct physical public hearings at four locations in the State. The Court held that the Commission cannot deviate from its past practice of holding hybrid or physical hearings unless valid and proportionate reasons are demonstrated. The Bench disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the Commission’s decision to restrict consultations on draft renewable energy regulations to online mode only. In a detailed judgement, the Court ordered that the public hearing be conducted in physical mode at Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram.

The Court held that the discontinuation of physical hearings, without making alternative arrangements to accommodate stakeholders unable to participate virtually, was arbitrary. The judgment stated, "Public hearing is a well-established and vital component of the regulatory process in our country" and recorded that unless genuinely warranted, "the Commission should not roll back or dilute this process." The Court directed the Commission to notify dates and venues of the physical hearings and to involve law enforcement for maintaining order during such hearings. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Also Read: "Court Cannot Turn a Blind Eye to the Trauma Inflicted on the Child": Supreme Court Restores Custody to Mother, Directs Structured Visitation Rights for Father Based on Psychological Evidence

The writ petition, registered as WP(PIL) No. 79 of 2025, was filed by the Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum – Kerala, a registered association represented by its President M. Abdul Sathar. The petitioner organisation claimed to work for the welfare and rights of solar energy users, especially domestic on-grid solar power prosumers in Kerala.

The petition was filed in response to the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission's decision to conduct only an online public hearing in respect of the draft regulations titled "Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy and Related Matters) Regulations, 2025". These draft regulations were released on 30 May 2025, inviting objections and suggestions from the stakeholders.

In its notice, the Commission had stated that a public hearing would be conducted and that the date and venue would be intimated separately. However, on 19 June 2025, the Commission issued a press note (erroneously dated 19 June 2022) announcing that the public hearing would be held online between 8 and 11 July 2025. The press note claimed that the online format would facilitate wider participation and invited interested parties to register online.

The petitioner forum filed the writ petition on 8 July 2025, seeking a direction for the Commission to conduct the hearing in hybrid mode, including physical sessions at multiple locations across Kerala. The petitioner contended that the proposed regulations would significantly impact existing prosumers, especially with respect to the continuation of net metering.

The petition stated that Kerala's solar energy generation had increased significantly in recent years, with many domestic and commercial installations relying on net metering arrangements. It was asserted that Kerala has become largely dependent on rooftop solar energy systems, and that changes to the net metering policy would affect a large section of the population. According to the petitioner, public hearings in physical mode had previously been conducted in several district centres including Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Kozhikode, and Kannur, with large stakeholder participation.

The petitioner further contended that the Evaluation Committee for preparing the discussion paper lacked representation from prosumer groups, consumer associations, environmental groups, and solar industry representatives. It was submitted that without stakeholder participation through physical hearings, the regulatory exercise would be incomplete.

The Commission's counsel contended that there was no legal requirement to hold physical public hearings and argued that past hearings had led to law and order disruptions. It was submitted that stakeholders had the option to send written comments, and that the online format ensured wider and safer participation. The Commission also claimed that the petitioner forum had already submitted its comments, and a public hearing was therefore not essential.

On 15 July 2025, the Court asked the Commission whether alternative means had been considered to prevent disruptions if a physical hearing was held. The Commission submitted a statement citing disruptions that occurred during a 2024 hearing in its court hall at Thiruvananthapuram, where several individuals had reportedly interfered with the proceedings.

The Commission stated that it decided to move to an online-only format to avoid such disruptions and for reasons of transparency and convenience. A proposed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for physical hearings was also filed. This included conditions such as advance registration, identity verification, and limiting entry to only those who had not participated in the online hearings.

The petitioner challenged these restrictions and maintained that in-person hearings were critical for inclusive and meaningful stakeholder participation. It was argued that many affected persons may not have digital access or technological proficiency. The forum stressed that travelling to a venue and attending a full-day physical hearing indicated serious interest and genuine engagement.

The Court reviewed various past notices issued by the Commission, including a 28 February 2024 notification regarding the Kerala Electricity Supply (Fifth Amendment) Code, 2024, which provided for hybrid hearings at four centres across Kerala. Another document dated 7 September 2024 referred to similar hearings conducted by the Commission at Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram.

The Division Bench began by referring to the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission’s statutory role under Section 86, including its obligation to promote renewable energy.

It noted the procedural requirement for previous publication under Section 181(3) and Rule 3 of the Electricity (Procedure for Previous Publication) Rules, 2005. The Court recorded, "the draft has to be published in a manner deemed fit by the Authority, and the Commission has to consider any objections or suggestions received."

However, it rejected the contention that the Commission had unqualified discretion in how to consider those objections. "There cannot be absolute discretion vested in the Commission in this regard," the Court observed.

The Bench stated that physical and hybrid hearings had evolved as a consistent practice under the Rules of 2005, and that stakeholders were led to believe that similar modes would be followed for the 2025 regulations, particularly due to the use of the term "venue" in the Commission's notice dated 30 May 2025.

The Court stated, "Public hearing is a well-established and vital component of the regulatory process in our country." It added that this process promotes participatory democracy and allows stakeholders to express their perspectives and participate in regulatory decision-making.

It recorded that "online hearing can be suitable for certain types of hearings, such as adversarial hearings in the Court, Tribunal, etc. Public hearing to understand the view of laypersons for a proposed regulation is different."

The Bench acknowledged the issue of digital divide and noted that not all stakeholders may be comfortable with virtual formats. It observed, "The hybrid mode of public hearing enables both those who are comfortable with technology and those who wish to present their views in person to have the opportunity to do so."

Regarding the Commission’s decision to avoid physical hearings due to previous disruptions, the Court held that this was a disproportionate response. It stated, "A valid and proportionate response to the situation presented before the Commission would be to take effective action against those who attempt to disrupt the hearing by involving the law enforcement agencies, and not to dispense with physical hearings in future altogether."

The Court added, "Maintaining law and order is the responsibility of the State, which it has to perform. Deployment of police at public events where there is apprehension of a breach of peace is a routine task."

It concluded that discontinuing physical hearings was not a proportionate or justified measure, particularly when logistical arrangements and law enforcement assistance could address the Commission’s concerns.

With respect to the proposed SOP submitted by the Commission, the Court held that some of the clauses were reasonable but others were "unduly stringent and give the impression that the SOP is more directed at imposing restrictions than receiving feedback."

The Bench rejected the Commission’s argument that physical hearings should be restricted to its office in Thiruvananthapuram. Referring to the past practice, it stated, "The Commission has, in the past, conducted physical public hearings at four locations across the State, including one outside its office. There is no justifiable reason for the Commission to deviate from this past practice."

The Division Bench issued clear directions, stating that the Respondent Commission must conduct physical public hearings at four locations across the State. The judgment recorded:

"In furtherance of the notice dated 30 May 2025 issued under the Rules of 2005, [the Commission] will notify the venue of physical public hearings at four locations, that is, Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram, as was done during earlier hearings in respect of previous draft regulations and tariff proposals."

Also Read: Kerala High Court | No Stamp Duty On Sale Certificates Issued After Auction By Banks Or Authorities

The Court further clarified that the modalities, including timing and hall selection, were to be determined by the Commission. However, it directed: "The Commission will endeavour to finalise the venue and time, keeping in mind the aspects of accessibility, sufficiency, convenience, and safety of the participants."

As regards regulation of the conduct of the hearing, the Bench ordered: "It is for the Commission to formulate a procedure to be notified in advance, however, taking into account the observations made in this judgment."

The Court permitted the Commission to request police assistance to ensure order: "It is open to the Commission to request the additional Respondents, namely, the State Police Chief and the City Police Commissioner, to deploy sufficient police personnel to assist the Commission for an orderly physical public hearing at the aforementioned locations. Upon such request being received, the additional Respondents will provide necessary assistance to the Commission."

With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Yeshwanth Shenoy, Smt. Aysha Abraham, Advocates

For the Respondents: Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup, Standing Counsel for R1; Sri. V. Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum – Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:55670

Case Number: WP(PIL) No. 79 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji