Back
Supreme Court's Justice PS Narasimha Suggests EV Charging Points for Court Parking During Hearing
In an unusual but forward-looking interjection during a routine commercial hearing, Justice PS Narasimha of the orally proposed the installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging points in the Supreme Court premises. The suggestion came as a response to a practical barrier often cited by potential EV buyers: the lack of accessible charging infrastructure. The bench, also comprising Justice Alok Aradhe, was hearing a matter concerning when the topic of EV adoption surfaced during arguments.
Justice Narasimha’s remarks were prompted by a conversation he had outside the courtroom. He recounted that he had advised an acquaintance to switch to an electric car, only to be met with the classic rebuttal: “Where are the charging points?” The judge then turned this real-world dilemma into a , suggesting that the Supreme Court itself could lead by example. “If you park your electric car in the Supreme Court here, by the time we dismiss the matter, you go back and your car is charged; that would be advantageous. Ask them to provide charging,” he told , who was appearing in the case.
The comment, though made in a lighter vein, carries significant weight given the platform. The Supreme Court has often used its to nudge policy changes, and this instance touches upon a critical juncture in India’s energy transition. The judge’s casual yet pointed remark highlights the infrastructure gap that continues to hinder the mass adoption of electric vehicles, even as the government pushes for a cleaner mobility ecosystem.
A Charge from the Bench
The core of Justice Narasimha’s observation lies in the chicken-and-egg problem of EV adoption. He noted that the absence of charging points discourages people from buying electric cars, and low demand in turn discourages investment in charging infrastructure. “I was suggesting to someone who was wanting to buy a car. I said now it's better to buy an EV car. He said it's very good and simple for you to say, but in my place, wherever I go, where is the charging point? There are no charging points, and because there are no charging points people are not buying electric cars,” the judge stated.
This practical concern resonates with a broader national challenge. Despite policy incentives like the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles (FAME) scheme, India’s EV penetration remains below 2% of total vehicle sales, largely due to range anxiety and inadequate public charging infrastructure. By suggesting that the Supreme Court—a symbol of justice and authority—install charging stations, the judge implicitly endorsed the idea that public institutions can play a catalytic role in building confidence among consumers.
The case at hand, a commercial dispute between a pharmaceutical distributor and the , had no direct connection to environmental law. Yet, the bench’s willingness to engage on the topic reflects a growing judicial awareness of environmental sustainability as a cross-cutting concern. Justice Narasimha, known for his expertise in constitutional and commercial law, demonstrated that even within the confines of a regular listing, judges can plant seeds for systemic change.
The Judicial Call for Green Infrastructure
Justice Narasimha’s suggestion is not the first instance where the Supreme Court has made informal policy recommendations. The court has a history of issuing directions and observations on environmental matters, from banning firecrackers to mandating cleaner fuel standards. However, this comment stands out for its subtlety and specificity. Rather than delivering a , the judge used an oral remark to spotlight a practical solution that lies within the court’s own administrative control.
The Supreme Court complex already houses hundreds of vehicles daily—advocates, litigants, court staff, and judges themselves. Installing EV charging points would not only serve the convenience of those using the court but also send a powerful signal to other government buildings, corporate offices, and public spaces. It aligns with the government’s target of having 30% of new vehicle sales as electric by 2030, a goal that requires widespread infrastructure deployment.
Moreover, the judge’s framing—that a car could be charged while a matter is dismissed—underscores the compatibility of EV charging with typical court timelines. Most hearings last between one and three hours, a period sufficient for a significant top-up charge using Level 2 AC chargers. If the court were to install fast DC chargers, a full charge could be achieved within an hour, making the proposition even more attractive.
From a legal perspective, the observation may influence pending cases and policy formulations. For instance, the Supreme Court is currently hearing matters related to air pollution in Delhi-NCR, where transport emissions are a major contributor. A judicial push for EV infrastructure could complement the directions already issued to the government on phasing out older vehicles and promoting electric public transport.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
While Justice Narasimha’s statement is not a judicial order, it carries . Lawyers and policymakers often treat such as indicators of judicial thinking. The remark may prompt the Supreme Court’s registry or the to consider a feasibility study for installing EV chargers in the court premises. Similar initiatives have been undertaken by courts abroad—for example, the and several federal courthouses in the United States have installed EV charging stations as part of their sustainability programs.
On a broader scale, the observation could accelerate the push for a national EV charging policy. India currently has about 5,000 public charging stations, far short of the estimated 46,000 needed by 2030. Private sector participation is growing, but public infrastructure remains the bottleneck. If the Supreme Court—an institution that commands public trust and visibility—takes the lead, it could create a ripple effect across other government departments and public utilities.
The legal community may also see this as an opportunity to engage with environmental law from a practical standpoint. Law firms, bar associations, and court complexes across the country could follow suit, integrating EV charging into their facilities. This would not only reduce their carbon footprint but also align with the ’s increasing focus on sustainability in legal practice.
Furthermore, the case highlights the role of judicial officers as public figures who can influence consumer behavior. Justice Narasimha’s candid admission that he tried to persuade someone to buy an EV, and the honest response he received, humanizes the judiciary and brings it closer to everyday concerns. It underscores that judges, too, grapple with the same practical challenges as ordinary citizens.
Conclusion
Justice PS Narasimha’s suggestion to install EV charging points at the Supreme Court is a small but significant step in the larger narrative of India’s transition to clean energy. It bridges the gap between judicial authority and environmental advocacy, using the platform of a routine hearing to address a systemic issue. By proposing that the court’s parking lot become a hub for electric vehicle charging, the judge has offered a simple, implementable solution that could inspire similar actions across the country.
The remark also serves as a reminder that sustainability is not just a matter for legislatures and executive agencies—it can be advanced through informal conversations within the hallowed halls of the judiciary. As India accelerates its march toward a greener future, such judicial nudges may prove as valuable as any formal directive. For now, litigants and lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court can only hope that the registry takes the judge’s advice to heart, and that their next visit will allow them to leave with a fully charged car—and a case that has met its proper end.
