Supreme Court To Set National Standard for Public Hearings by Electricity Regulators

New Delhi — The Supreme Court of India has signaled its intent to establish a uniform standard for conducting public hearings across all State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs), a move poised to significantly impact procedural fairness and public participation in the country's crucial power sector. The Court's decision to intervene promises to bring much-needed clarity and consistency to a process that is fundamental to the principles of natural justice and participatory governance.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar announced the broad scope of its inquiry while hearing an appeal filed by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC). The appeal challenged a Kerala High Court directive that mandated the commission to conduct "hybrid" public hearings—allowing for both physical and online participation—for its revision of Renewable Energy Regulations.

“We will examine and perhaps declare a standard by which the public hearing could be conducted by various Electricity Regulatory Commissions across the country,” the bench stated, elevating a state-specific dispute into a matter of national regulatory policy.

The Court has issued notice in the case, titled Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Domestic On Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala & Ors. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26862/2025), and has taken steps to ensure a comprehensive examination of the issue. In a significant move, the bench directed that the Forum of Regulators , a statutory body constituted under Section 166(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The Forum, which consists of the chairperson of the Central Commission and the chairpersons of the State Commissions, is tasked with harmonizing regulations and will play a crucial role in the development of a national standard.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court appointed Advocate Anand Ganesan , a noted expert in electricity law, to assist the court as Amicus Curiae, underscoring the legal complexity and importance of the matter.

The Genesis: A Dispute Over Access in Kerala

The case originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Kerala High Court by the Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala. The forum contested the KSERC's decision to eliminate in-person hearings entirely in favor of an online-only format for consultations on the state's Renewable Energy Regulations.

The KSERC had defended its decision by citing significant "law and order issues" that had plagued previous physical hearings, arguing that the online model was a necessary measure to maintain order and administrative efficiency. However, the petitioner argued that this move disenfranchised stakeholders who lacked the technical access or proficiency to participate effectively online, thereby undermining the very purpose of a public hearing.

The Kerala High Court, in its judgment dated July 28, found merit in the petitioners' concerns. While acknowledging the Commission's administrative challenges, the High Court observed that a complete shift to online-only hearings was a disproportionate response. It directed the KSERC to hold hybrid hearings at four key locations: Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram.

To address the law and order concerns, the High Court provided a clear solution: "The Commission could request the State Police Chief and City Police Commissioner to deploy enough police personnel to assist in maintaining order during such hearings." The court further mandated that police authorities must provide the necessary assistance upon such a request.

This balanced approach by the High Court, which sought to preserve public access while providing the regulator with the means to ensure security, now forms the basis of the Supreme Court's wider inquiry. While the Supreme Court did not stay the High Court's judgment, it clarified that its directions would "remain confined to the facts of the present case" for now, preventing it from becoming a binding precedent for other commissions until the apex court frames its own national guidelines.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The Supreme Court's intervention touches upon fundamental principles of administrative law, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard) and the broader right to public participation in governance. Public hearings are not mere procedural formalities; they are a critical mechanism for ensuring that regulatory bodies make informed, transparent, and accountable decisions. This is particularly vital in the electricity sector, where regulatory decisions on tariffs, grid connectivity, and renewable energy policy have far-reaching economic and social consequences for consumers, industries, and prosumers.

The debate over physical versus online hearings has gained prominence post-pandemic, with many judicial and quasi-judicial bodies adopting digital proceedings. While technology offers efficiency and broader reach, it also risks creating a "digital divide," excluding individuals and groups from marginalized communities who may lack reliable internet access, digital literacy, or appropriate hardware.

A standardized framework from the Supreme Court could address several key questions:

• Defining the Hybrid Model: What constitutes an effective hybrid hearing? The Court may lay down minimum standards for technology, accessibility, and procedure to ensure that remote participation is as meaningful as in-person attendance.
• Determining the Default Mode: Should hybrid be the default mode for all significant regulatory consultations, or can regulators opt for online-only hearings under specific, justifiable circumstances?
• Balancing Access and Administration: How should regulators balance the imperative of public access with legitimate administrative concerns like security and cost? The Court may provide a framework for assessing proportionality in such cases.
• Uniformity Across States: By involving the Forum of Regulators, the Court aims to create a harmonized approach, preventing a patchwork of different hearing standards across states that could lead to litigation and regulatory uncertainty.

The outcome of this case will have a profound impact not only on the 28 State Electricity Regulatory Commissions but could also set a guiding precedent for other regulatory bodies across sectors like environment, telecommunications, and finance, where public consultations are a statutory requirement. By taking up this issue, the Supreme Court is poised to reinforce the constitutional value of participatory democracy in the complex arena of modern economic regulation.