Back
Directs To Provide Electricity Connection In Temple Premises
The has declared that access to electricity is a under , directing the to provide a power connection to a man who had been forced to live without it for over a decade.
A comprising Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran allowed the filed by Fanindra Das, quashing the railway authorities' orders that had repeatedly rejected his request for electricity supply. The court directed the General Manager of , Gorakhpur, to provide the connection within 30 days unless a exists.
A Decade-Long Struggle for a Basic Need
The dispute centered on a temple located within the Railway Colony at Ballia. The petitioner's father, Mahant Aniruddha Das, had been the temple's priest and enjoyed an electricity connection provided by the railway authorities since . After his death, the petitioner sought either a transfer of the existing connection or a new one, but railway authorities refused, citing a dispute between the petitioner and his brother, Makardhwaj Das.
The railway's rejection was further grounded in a directive from 1996, which stated that no electricity connection could be provided on private land within railway premises. The authorities argued that the temple stood on private land, and therefore they were not obligated to supply power.
Rejecting a Narrow Reading of the Law
The petitioner's counsel, , argued that the denial violated the to life under Article 21, which extends beyond mere animal existence to include essential amenities. The railway authorities, represented by , reiterated their stand, relying on the 's order.
The High Court firmly rejected the railway's narrow interpretation. It observed that the respondents did not dispute that the petitioner was living at the premises, yet he had been
"forced to live without electricity for last more than a decade."
Key Observations from the High Court
The emphasized that electricity is no longer a luxury but an indispensable need in modern society. Citing the 's judgment in , which held that the right to shelter includes adequate living space, clean surroundings, pure air and water, and electricity, the court stated:
"I n an organised society, right to live as a human being would not be possible without adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. "
The court also relied on
, where the
declared that
"electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived."
A
's decision in
was further cited to reinforce that access to electricity is a under Article 21.
The Core Legal Finding
The court's pivotal reasoning underscored the state's duty to ensure basic human needs:
"I t is the abundant duty of the respondents to ensure that the petitioner have accessibility to basic human need and in modern times, electricity is an indispensable need to live. "
The judges concluded that the electricity connection
"ought to have been granted by the Railway Authorities except under the condition where the law disentitles the same."
Since no such legal disentitlement was established, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated
, and
.
Implications of the Ruling
The decision reinforces the constitutional framework that the under Article 21 includes access to electricity as a . By directing the railway to provide the connection within 30 days, the court has sent a clear message that administrative policies cannot override basic human rights. The judgment is likely to be cited in future cases involving denial of electricity connections, particularly where no exists.
The court made , and the General Manager, , has been directed to comply unless a specific legal impediment is identified.
