Kerala HC directs KSERC to hold hybrid public hearings on renewable energy rules
The directive follows widespread complaints that the Draft Renewable Energy Regulations 2025 issued by the KSERC pose a serious threat to ordinary consumers, particularly those seeking to install rooftop solar systems above 3 kW.
The Court's decision comes in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala, which raised concerns after the Commission decided to hold only online hearings, abandoning the physical format followed in previous years.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji noted the petitioners' grievance that the practice of physical hearings had been discontinued without adequate justification.
In its order, the Court stated that physical hearings may be held in Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram, but left the selection of specific venues and dates to the discretion of the Commission. The Bench stressed that the Commission must consider accessibility, convenience, sufficiency, and participant safety when finalizing the logistics.
While the Commission had earlier cited law and order concerns as the reason for limiting hearings to an online format, the Court maintained that hybrid hearings are essential to ensure inclusivity and meaningful public participation.
The Court also directed the Commission to formulate and notify, in advance, a clear and transparent procedure for conducting the public hearings, thereby promoting openness and procedural fairness.
In summary, the High Court's order restores the option of physical attendance at public hearings in key locations across Kerala, in addition to online participation, and instructs the Commission to implement well-publicized and orderly procedures for the hearings.
This approach aims to enhance accessibility, inclusivity, and transparency in the regulatory process concerning renewable energy in the state.
The draft regulations limit net metering to just 3 kW, a drastic rollback from the 2020 regulations, which permitted up to 1000 kW—enabling participation by large consumers and community-based institutions, Prosumers Forum said.
Critics argue that the draft regulations disincentivize net metering in favor of unfair billing models that undervalue consumer-generated solar power. This exclusion could directly impact millions of consumers interested in installing rooftop solar systems above 3 kW.
"KSEB claims that prosumers burden the grid by consuming during peak hours and exporting during off-peak, increasing system costs. But this is misleading. Solar power from prosumers is consumed locally, reducing transmission loss and storage needs," the Forum clarified.
KSEB resells this power at three to four times the price, while paying prosumers as little as ₹3/unit. Their claim of a Rs500 crore loss due to prosumers is unverified, lacking audited data or regulatory backing.
In reality, prosumers support the grid by reducing peak demand and aiding load balancing.
The KSERC Draft Renewable Energy Regulations 2025 threatens to derail Kerala's clean energy future. Instead of encouraging a people-led transformation, it stifles grassroots solar adoption, jeopardizing public trust, climate goals, and energy freedom.
If passed in its current form, Kerala will continue to import costly power while letting its rooftop solar potential go to waste—an environmental, economic, and democratic failure, the Forum said.
UNI DS AAB
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
40 minutes ago
- United News of India
'Consider ground realities': SC hears plea for restoration of J-K statehood
New Delhi, Aug 14 (UNI) The Supreme Court today, while hearing a plea seeking directions for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's statehood, underlined the need to consider 'ground realities' in the region, citing incidents such as the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing an application by college teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, urging the Union Government to fulfil its assurance of restoring statehood. 'It has been 21 months since the judgment in the Article 370 case, and there has been no movement, despite the Union's statement before this Court that statehood would be implemented,' Sankarnarayanan told the Bench. The application, filed as a miscellaneous plea in the disposed matter in regarding Article 370 of the Constitution, arises from the Court's 2023 verdict upholding the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. In that ruling, the Bench had refrained from examining the constitutionality of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 which bifurcated the erstwhile state into the Union Territories of J-K and Ladakh in view of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance that statehood would be restored 'at the earliest.' The judgment had directed the Election Commission to conduct Assembly polls in J&K by September 30, 2024, and restore statehood 'as soon as possible,' but without fixing a binding timeline. Senior Advocate Sankarnarayanan pointed out that the Court's own words in the Article 370 verdict contemplated restoration post-elections, yet no tangible step had been taken. During today's hearing, SG Tushar Mehta opposed the plea, arguing it was 'not maintainable' and noting that in the past, the Court had imposed costs on similar petitions. 'Elections are held in a unique context in this part of the country, and several considerations inform decision-making,' he said. Another counsel stressed that 'the reality of the assurance is also important' and urged practical implementation. CJI Gavai interjected to note, 'You also have to take into consideration the ground realities; you cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam,' referencing the recent terror attack. Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for applicant Irfan Lone, supported the call for restoration. Other counsels suggested that a separate Bench be constituted to hear all connected pleas together. The matter has now been listed after eight weeks, with the Court directing the Union to file its response before the next date. 'Let them file the response; immediately after eight weeks,' the CJI said. The applicants, including activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, argue that the Union's failure to restore statehood in a time-bound manner undermines the basic feature of federalism. They contend that peaceful Assembly elections have removed any plausible impediment such as security concerns or unrest. 'Therefore, there is no impediment of security concerns, violence, or other disturbances which would hinder or prevent the grant/restoration of statehood to Jammu & Kashmir as had been assured,' their plea states. UNI SNG AAB
Indian Express
42 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The streets are no place for dogs. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation
Written by Harish Tiwari The Supreme Court's recent directive to remove free-roaming dogs from Delhi-NCR streets and place them in shelters within eight weeks is a landmark moment in India's decades-long struggle with stray dog management. It finally recognises what has long been evident — the streets are not the right place for man's best friend. But the real test will lie not in the order itself but in its execution. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation. If it fails through haste or poor planning, other states will hesitate for years, and the issue could slide back into neglect. The CJI has, however, constituted a three-judge bench to hear the matter further and has reserved the order. For years, debate on this issue has been reduced to 'dog lovers versus dog bite victims,' a false binary that tries to portray the issue as compassion against cruelty. This framing ignores the critical expertise of other stakeholders — ecologists, veterinarians, epidemiologists, urban planners, and public health experts — who understand dog population dynamics, rabies epidemiology, and human–animal interactions. Their insights must guide implementation. The Court's directive gives municipalities political cover to act, but how they do so will decide whether this becomes a turning point or a cautionary tale. Large-scale removal of street dogs is not as simple as netting and relocating them. Without proper planning, shelters risk becoming overcrowded warehouses breeding disease, neglect, and public outrage. Quick-fix, unscientific solutions will fail and harm India's credibility internationally. What is needed is a phased, humane approach supported by robust, long-term capacity. Shelters should not be holding pens but well-designed facilities with sustainable capacity, veterinary care, isolation wards, sterilisation units, vaccination clinics, and enrichment spaces. Microchipping, photo identification, or tagging every dog can ensure real enumeration, traceability and prevent them from returning to the streets. Adoption must be central to the plan. Puppies and sociable adults can find homes through public adoption drives, coupled with proper screening and follow-up to prevent repeat abandonment. Beyond rehoming, Indian local dogs should be valued for their resilience and adaptability. They can be trained as guard dogs, search-and-rescue animals, or security partners for police and disaster response teams, changing public perception about them from nuisance to asset. A lasting solution also requires stopping the pipeline of new street dogs. Pet owners must be required to register, sterilise, and vaccinate their dogs, with strict penalties for abandonment. Public campaigns should promote responsible ownership as part of civic duty. Feeding dogs in public without taking responsibility for their health and behaviour is misplaced compassion that sustains the cycle of conflict. Public fear of dogs is real and must be respected, but it should be addressed by tackling the root causes of aggression. Instead of public feeding, contributions can be channelised to the shelter homes to develop a sustainable business model with perennial social benefits and A-class animal welfare. The writer is DBT Wellcome Trust India Alliance Intermediate Fellow, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IITG), and research affiliate, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Adults have right to marry without family interference, says Delhi high court
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the personal liberty of two consenting adults to marry and live together peacefully is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a recent ruling, the court emphasised that family opposition cannot override this autonomy. The Delhi high court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family.(File Photo/PTI) Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, directing law enforcement to protect couples from threats or coercion. In this case, the court ordered police protection for a young couple who feared harassment from the woman's family. The couple had solemnised their marriage on July 23, 2025, following Hindu rituals at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. They approached the court after the woman's parents allegedly tried to pressure her, despite her voluntary departure from her family home and her clear affirmation of the marriage during a police inquiry. That inquiry, initiated after a "missing" complaint, was later closed. To ensure their safety, the court instructed the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assign a beat officer, brief them on the court's directives, and provide the couple with emergency contact numbers. Any reported threats must be documented and addressed without delay. Justice Narula clarified that the court was not ruling on the veracity of the allegations but was solely focused on protecting the couple's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and dignity.
