At the heart of the controversy is the Bill's push for "more aggressive" privatisation. It allows multiple distribution licensees to operate in the same area, using the same public-funded network .
This creates a dystopian "cherry-picking" scenario where private companies will woo high-paying industrial and commercial consumers, leaving the less profitable—but socially essential—domestic and rural consumers to beleaguered state-owned DISCOMs. The cross-subsidy model, which uses profits from high-tariff consumers to keep electricity affordable for the poor and farmers, will be dismantled within five years, as per the draft .
This is not reform; it is a recipe for entrenching inequality, making power unaffordable for those who can least bear the burden.
The government’s promotion of smart metering is the technological handmaiden to this privatisation drive, designed to facilitate billing and surveillance for corporate entities rather than to enhance service for the public . The experiences from states like Odisha and Delhi, where privatisation led to higher tariffs, job losses, and weakened service, are stark warnings that the government seems intent on ignoring .
Furthermore, the Bill is a direct assault on India's federal structure. It grants the Central Government sweeping powers over state energy policy and state regulatory commissions, stripping opposition-ruled states of their constitutional authority over electricity . This centralisation of power is particularly egregious at a time when many states are already facing fiscal stress due to biased GST allocations.
The CITU has rightly identified electricity as a "social right, not a commodity" . The government must halt this disastrous legislation and instead focus on strengthening public utilities, investing in reliable and renewable generation, and ensuring that the right to electricity is guaranteed for every citizen, not just every shareholder.
2.jpg)
1.jpg)
.jpg)
