Article 21 protects an occupant’s access to electricity absent statutory impediment.

An electricity connection had been provided by the Railway authorities in 1978 to a temple within the Railway Colony at Ballia, in the name of the petitioner’s deceased father, its Mahant.

After his father’s death, the petitioner sought a new connection or transfer of the existing connection, but the Railway authorities refused. Their stated reasons included a dispute between the petitioner and his brother over use of the connection and a Railway Board instruction restricting connections on private land unless the occupants were authorised and connected with Railway working.

The petitioner challenged the rejection orders dated 26 July 2011 and 9 May 2012 by writ petition.

The Railway opposed the claim; respondent no. 4, the electricity distribution company, filed no counter-affidavit.

Whether the petitioner could be denied electricity at premises where the respondents did not dispute that he was residing, on the basis of the Railway’s stated reasons and instructions.

Whether the rejection orders should be quashed and the Railway directed to provide the petitioner an electricity connection, subject to any statutory impediment.

Article 21 protects conditions necessary for a dignified human life; the right to shelter encompasses electricity and other civic amenities (Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549).

Electricity is a basic amenity, and an electricity authority considering an application should examine the applicant’s occupation of the premises rather than deny supply merely because of a landlord’s refusal to provide a no-objection certificate (Dilip (Dead) v. Satish, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 810).

The Court also relied on Preeti Sharma v. State of U.P. and 7 others, Writ-C No. 2072 of 2026, which treated access to electricity as protected under Article 21 and directed that a connection be provided after completion of formalities.

The Court recognised that the right to a connection remains subject to a statutory impediment.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s requested premises were within Railway property and considered that the connection could therefore be provided only by the Railway authorities.

It further observed that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner’s residence there, yet had denied him electricity for more than a decade.

Applying the Article 21 principles and authorities on electricity as a basic amenity, the Court held that the Railway’s stated reasons did not justify depriving the petitioner of access to electricity, absent a legal impediment.

It directed the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, to provide the petitioner an electricity connection within 30 days of presentation of a certified copy of the judgment, unless there was a statutory impediment.

No order as to costs was made.