In Brief
The Supreme Court resolved a conflict between High Courts on whether a State Electricity Regulatory Commission must be headed by a High Court Judge. The Court held that Section 84(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is merely permissive—the word 'may' is not mandatory. However, because State Commissions exercise adjudicatory functions (under Section 86(1)(f)) with full court-like powers (summoning witnesses, examining evidence, making binding decisions), they must have at least one member with substantial legal qualifications—either a sitting/retired Judge or a lawyer with qualifications equivalent to High Court or District Judge standards. The Court rejected challenges to Tamil Nadu Commission appointments and its tariff orders, finding no merit in bias claims where officials had relinquished prior posts before appointment. Going forward, if a Commission lacks a legal member, the next vacancy must be filled by a legally qualified person.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.