Access to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that access to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be denied to a person in lawful possession of a property merely because of a pending landlord-tenant dispute [Maiki Jain Vs BSES Rajdhani].

Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while directing BSES Rajdhani Power Limited to restore electricity supply to the third floor of a residential property in West Delhi without insisting on a no objection certificate from the landlords.

“Electricity is a basic necessity and an integral part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as long as the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, he cannot be deprived of the same,” the Court said.

It added that no citizen can be expected to live a life devoid of basic necessities such as electricity.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by one Maiki Jain who claimed to be a tenant in possession of a property in New Delhi since 2016 under registered lease deeds.

Jain approached the High Court after electricity supply to the premises was disconnected in November 2025 despite clearance of outstanding dues.

According to the petitioner, the electricity meter at the premises was registered in the name of the landlords but electricity had been continuously supplied to the tenanted portion and charges were paid regularly.

Due to temporary financial hardship, the petitioner was unable to clear electricity dues for September and October 2025, leading to disconnection and removal of the meter on November 28, 2025.

Jain claimed that although the outstanding dues were cleared on the same day, BSES refused to restore supply unless he produced an NOC from the landlords, who declined to provide one.

Meanwhile, the landlords filed a civil suit against the petitioner seeking recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits and a permanent injunction. The petitioner too filed a counter-claim seeking restoration of water supply, alleging deliberate disruption of basic amenities.

The petitioner also filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

BSES Rajdhani Power Limited opposed the petition and submitted that the landlords were the registered consumers of the electricity connection and that the supply was disconnected due to non-payment of dues.

It further stated that it had received instructions from the landlords not to restore electricity to the third floor and that the meter was under their lock and key, making restoration difficult without their cooperation.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the pendency of civil disputes cannot justify depriving a person of electricity. The Court noted that the petitioner continued to be in lawful possession of the premises and that such possession could not be treated as unlawful in the absence of an eviction order passed by a competent court.

"Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is to be noted that a pending landlord and tenant dispute cannot be the basis for depriving electricity, which is a basic amenity.... However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, lawfully, and till the time, there is any eviction order passed against the petitioner by a Court of law, the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be unlawful," the Court held.

It directed BSES to restore electricity supply from the existing meter without insisting on any NOC from the landlords. It further directed the landlords to cooperate and not obstruct the restoration process. In case of resistance, BSES was permitted to seek police assistance.

The Court also directed BSES officials to visit the premises on December 19 for restoration of supply and required the petitioner to be present and comply with all commercial requirements, including payment of future electricity bills.

It clarified that BSES would be entitled to disconnect the supply in case of non-payment of dues.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Vishal Saxena, Meenakshi Garg and Rashi Aggarwal

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd was represented by advocates Sharique Hussain and Kirti Garg.

[Read Judgment]