Electricity Amendment Bill anti-people, anti-federal: Kejriwal
New Delhi, Sep 29 : Calling the proposed amendment to the Electricity Act 2003 'anti-people' and 'anti-federal', Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Saturday said it would lead to a sharp hike in the electricity bills of the common man.
The bill would lead to huge tariff hikes and will result in complete control of the Centre over the power sector and total exclusion of the states, he told the media here.
"The amendment will benefit selected private players. The power tariffs of small and medium domestic consumers will increase at least two to three times immediately all across India," Kejriwal said.
"Presently, two of the three members of the electricity regulatory commissions are state government's choice. The amendment proposes a six-member selection committee with only one state government nominee, four Central government nominees and one sitting Supreme Court judge," he said.
"In effect, the Central government will decide the constitution of all State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs)," he said.
The Bill, expected to be passed in the winter session of the Parliament, just a few months before elections, will also increase crony capitalism and monopoly, Kejriwal said.
"The Centre will be able to give benefits to the power companies close to them. The timing of these amendments is suspicious. It is rumoured that these power companies would return favours by providing funds for elections," he said.
Claiming that the Delhi Government has provided the cheapest and uninterrupted power supply, Kejriwal said his government has not hiked tariffs in the last three years.
"The amendments propose phasing out of cross-subsidies. Presently, all across India, higher tariffs are charged from industrial and commercial consumers to subsidise domestic consumers and farmers.
"After this amendment, there will be just one rate of electricity for all consumers irrespective of load, consumption or type of consumer," he said.
"It is proposed to reduce cross-subsidy to 20 per cent immediately and progressively eliminate it within three years. This would lead to a huge increase in tariffs all across the country immediately," he added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses to adjourn hearing on pleas against EC law, says this matter is more important
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the Centre's request to adjourn the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the CJI from a committee responsible for appointing the chief election commissioner and the deputies, saying the matter is "more important" than the Sabarimala case.
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.
A bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case.
Referring to the gravity of the current challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Datta said, "This matter is more important than any other matter."
"Let your (solicitor general's) associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspapers that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place," Justice Datta said.
ALSO READ: Girl mauled to death by stray dogs in Punjab's Hoshiarpur
The bench then directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Thursday, allowing the Centre to present its submissions on a subsequent date. The bench then proceeded with the hearing which is underway.
Earlier on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. "I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest," the CJI had said. The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.
The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.
Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).
The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.
The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Earlier, the Centre defended in the Supreme Court the appointment of two new election commissioners under the 2023 law that excludes the chief justice of India from the selection committee, saying the independence of the Election Commission does not arise from the presence of a judicial member on the committee.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the Union law ministry rejected the petitioner's claim that the two election commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14, 2024, to "pre-empt" the orders of the top court the next day, when the matters challenging the 2023 law were listed for hearing on interim relief.
The apex court also refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners under the 2023 law.
A five-judge constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
