Supreme Court Slams Electricity Appellate Tribunal for Breach of Judicial Discipline

The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) for reopening a legal dispute that had already been settled by the apex court, describing its actions as a blatant breach of judicial discipline and a violation of Article 141 of the Constitution. Setting aside the tribunal's review order in a dispute involving the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), the court emphasised that specialised tribunals cannot disregard binding Supreme Court judgments or use their review powers to reconsider matters that have attained legal finality.

A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran made the observations while allowing DVC's appeal against APTEL's 2024 decision concerning the recovery of Sinking Fund contributions through electricity tariffs. Describing the tribunal as having “gone haywire” — meaning it had gone off track and acted improperly — the Bench expressed strong displeasure over its decision to reopen an issue already settled by the Supreme Court.

The dispute concerned DVC's tariff determination for 2009–2014, under which the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) permitted the corporation to recover Sinking Fund contributions as expenditure through electricity tariffs. Maithan Alloys Limited and other consumers challenged the arrangement, arguing that allowing both depreciation on assets financed through borrowed funds and Sinking Fund contributions could result in double recovery.

The Supreme Court had examined the relevant statutory provisions in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited v. DVC (2018). Subsequently, APTEL upheld CERC's determination in its May 17, 2019 order. However, following a review petition filed by Maithan Alloys, the tribunal reversed its earlier position in 2024.

Rejecting the review, the Supreme Court held that review jurisdiction cannot become an alternative appeal mechanism. Citing State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008), it emphasised that an apparent error must be self-evident. The Bench also reiterated that Article 141 makes Supreme Court judgments binding on all courts and tribunals, warning that disregarding precedents could create judicial uncertainty.

Setting aside APTEL's review order, the Bench restored its 2019 decision and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on Maithan Alloys and ₹1.5 lakh on Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) for supporting the review order. The amounts must be paid to DVC within one month, with 18% annual interest in case of default.

The judgment reinforces the authority of judicial precedents, limits on tribunal review powers and the importance of judicial hierarchy and finality of litigation in India's legal system.