The Regulation Survived. The Directions Written Around It Did Not.
Renewable power developers challenged the connectivity rules for the inter-State grid. The Chief Justice's bench has held the regulation valid — and set aside the workaround the Single Judge had built.
The Court held that Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 is not liable to be struck down or read down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. Having sustained the Regulation, the Single Judge was not justified in issuing directions inconsistent with its mandatory requirement. The developer's appeals were dismissed and the utilities' allowed.
- Uphold it or strike it — not both. Directions that cut across a regulation the court has sustained cannot stand.
- Manifest arbitrariness was the test, and the Regulation passed it.
- Eight connected appeals were decided together, from the transmission utility and several renewable developers.
- The statutory framework stays undisturbed, which is the phrase the Court used for what it was protecting.
- Court
- High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
- Bench
- Justice CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice K.S. HEMALEKHA
- Citation
- Writ Appeal No. 1961 of 2025 and connected appeals
- Case
- Writ Appeal No. 1961 of 2025 and connected appeals
- Decided
- 28 August 2026
- Outcome
- Developer's appeals dismissed; utilities' appeals allowed and Regulation held valid
What was challenged
The challenge was to Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022, on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Eight writ appeals were heard together — by the Central Transmission Utility of India, by two renewable energy companies, and by the developer whose writ petition had succeeded in part below.
What the Court held on validity
The Court answered the points for consideration by holding that Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) is not liable to be struck down, nor to be read down, on the ground of manifest arbitrariness in violation of Article 14.
The constitutional challenge raised by the developer was rejected, and the Regulation held valid.
Why the directions below fell
Having sustained the Regulation, the Single Judge was not justified in issuing directions inconsistent with its mandatory requirement. The order under appeal therefore warranted interference to that extent.
The developer's two appeals were dismissed. The appeals of the transmission utility and of the two energy companies and connected appellants were allowed, leaving the statutory framework undisturbed.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Is Regulation 5.8(vii)(a) of the GNA Regulations valid?
Yes. The Court held it is not liable to be struck down or read down as manifestly arbitrary.
Can a court soften a regulation it has upheld?
No. Directions inconsistent with the regulation's mandatory requirement were set aside.
Challenging a sectoral regulation
- Decide whether you are attacking validity or seeking a workaround; a court that upholds the rule cannot give you the second.
- Plead manifest arbitrariness with the specific feature said to be irrational, not the outcome you dislike.
- Expect connected appeals from the regulated utilities; their interest runs the other way.
- Where relief would cut across a mandatory requirement, ask the regulator instead of the court.
Source. High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Writ Appeal No. 1961 of 2025 and connected appeals, decided 28 August 2026 by Justice CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice K.S. HEMALEKHA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in