Introduction
The Delhi High Court, in a recent order, reaffirmed that electricity is a basic necessity and forms part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court made it clear that a tenant who remains in lawful possession of a property cannot be deprived of electricity merely because a landlord tenant dispute is pending.
This order was passed by Justice Mini Pushkarna on 15 December 2025 in W.P.(C) 18953 of 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Shri Maiki Jain, had been occupying the third floor of a property in Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi, as a tenant since 2016 under registered lease deeds. The electricity connection for the premises stood in the name of the landlords and was supplied by BSES Rajdhani Power Limited.
A dispute later arose between the tenant and the landlords. The landlords filed a civil suit seeking possession, arrears of rent, and other reliefs. The tenant also filed a counter-claim relating to the supply of essential services. During this period, electricity supply to the premises was disconnected due to non-payment of dues for September and October 2025. The tenant cleared the outstanding amount on 28 November 2025. Despite clearing the dues, electricity was not restored.
The electricity provider insisted on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the landlords. The landlords refused to give the NOC, which resulted in continued denial of electricity supply. This led the tenant to approach the Delhi High Court.
Stand Taken by the Electricity Provider
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited stated that the electricity meter was registered in the landlords’ names. It also stated that it received communication from the landlords requesting that electricity should not be restored. According to the provider, restoration was not possible without cooperation from the landlords.
Findings of the Delhi High Court
The High Court rejected the argument that a pending landlord tenant dispute justified denial of electricity.
The Court noted that:
The tenant remained in lawful possession of the premises.
No eviction order had been passed against the tenant.
Until such an order existed, possession could not be treated as unlawful.
The Court clearly held that electricity is a basic amenity and an essential requirement for a dignified life. Depriving a person of electricity amounted to a violation of Article 21, which protects the right to life. The Court also observed that courts had repeatedly recognised access to electricity as a necessity for human existence and dignity.
Directions Issued by the Court
The Delhi High Court issued detailed directions to ensure immediate restoration of electricity:
Electricity was ordered to be restored from the existing meter without insisting on any NOC from the landlords.
The landlords were directed to cooperate and not interfere with restoration.
The electricity provider was allowed to seek police assistance if resistance occurred.
A specific date and time were fixed for restoration, with directions for both parties to remain present.
The tenant was directed to comply with all technical and commercial requirements and to pay future electricity bills regularly.
The electricity provider retained the right to disconnect supply again if future bills remained unpaid.
The Court clarified that this order did not decide ownership or possession rights and would not affect the pending civil disputes between the parties.
Why This Order Matters
This decision reinforced an important constitutional principle:
Essential services cannot be used as tools of pressure in private disputes.
The ruling protected tenants from indirect eviction tactics and misuse of control over utilities. It also placed a clear responsibility on electricity providers to ensure that fundamental rights were not compromised due to private conflicts.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order strengthened the understanding that Article 21 goes beyond survival and includes access to basic necessities such as electricity. As long as a person remained in lawful possession of a property, denial of electricity violated constitutional protections.
This judgment added another layer to the evolving interpretation of the right to life in India.
