JSA Prism | Electricity and Power | September 2026

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

Supreme Court of India holds that the deaths/injuries due to electrocution attract strict liability on electricity boards, not absolute liability.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Rekha and Ors.[1], considered questions relating to the maintainability of writ petitions and the appropriate yardstick for determining compensation in electrocution cases. It was inter alia held that in cases relating to electrocution of an individual are governed by the principles of strict liability.

Brief facts

• Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (“KPTCL”) had challenged the imputation of liability on itself and the consequent order to pay compensation by the Single Judge[2]. It was later confirmed by a Division Bench[3] of the Karnataka High Court (“Karnataka Division Bench”). KPTCL had only challenged 2 (two) of the 3 (three) appeals decided by the Division Bench.
• In the first appeal[4], respondent no. 1 e., Rekha, the wife of the deceased, N. Subramanya, filed a writ petition seeking compensation for his death by electrocution. It was opposed by KPTCL on grounds of maintainability, lack of fault on their part, and presence of disputed questions of fact. The single judge of the Karnataka High Court (Karnataka Single Judge”) and the Karnataka Division Bench held the writ petition to be maintainable and granted compensation based on the framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• In the second appeal[5], respondent e., Muizz Ahmad Shariff jumped onto a neighbouring building’s roof to retrieve a cricket ball and got severely injured after coming into contact with a 66 (sixty-six) kilovolt line. The Karnataka Single Judge awarded compensation which was upheld by the Karnataka Division Bench.

Issues

• Whether the writ petition is maintainable when there are disputed questions of fact and an effective alternate remedy is available; and
• What should be the yardstick to determine compensation in cases of electrocution.

Findings and analysis

Re. Maintainability of the writ petition

• The Supreme Court observed that there were disputed questions of fact in respect of both the civil appeals. The Supreme Court relied upon the various judgments[6] regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, whereby the following principles emerge:
  • the High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition where an effective alternate remedy is available. However, there are a few exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy:
    • the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right;
    • there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or fundamental rights;

• • • the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or

• • • the vires of a legislation is challenged.
  • In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.
• The Supreme Court also relied upon Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (Gridco) vs. Sukamani Das[7] specifically in the context of electrocution, whereby it was inter alia held that if the questions of fact are disputed, then Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be an appropriate remedy in cases of electrocution.
• The High Court in the impugned judgments had held that disputed questions of fact were not of any relevance because absolute liability is applicable, and not strict liability. Since there are no exceptions to absolute liability, the presence of disputed facts would not absolve the appellant herein.

Re. Absolute liability and strict liability

• Absolute liability leaves no scope for exception from such liability, e., the person will be so liable irrespective of the facts and circumstances in which such imputation has been made upon them. It applies only to enterprises and comes into play when the activity being carried out is inherently dangerous or hazardous and someone has been harmed because of the accident that has taken place in performing such activity (Reliance was placed on the Oleum Gas Leak Case[8]).
• The general rule of strict liability is that when a person collects or brings upon his land anything that is likely to cause mischief, and if such thing escapes, then this person is liable for all natural consequences that follow. (Reliance was placed on Rylands vs. Fletcher[9], Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum[10], Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Company Limited vs. Vandry[11]).
• The Supreme Court relied upon Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar[12], whereby it was observed and held that the principle of strict liability states that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. The principle of Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) covers a variety of things likely to do mischief on escape, irrespective of whether they were dangerous per seg. water, electricity, explosions, oil, etc. It also includes statutory authorities, public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private profit. In M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari[13], which arose from a suit for damages filed in a case of electrocution, it was held that the consideration of reasonable precaution is not applicable to the principle of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
• The Supreme Court also noted that the judgment in Kaushnuma Begum and Ors. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited[14] whereby the exceptions to this rule were recognised, namely consent of the plaintiff (volenti non fit injuria); common benefit; act of stranger; exercise of statutory authority; act of God; default of the plaintiff; and remoteness of the consequences.
• The Supreme Court held that in cases of electrocution of an individual, the standard of liability applicable on electricity boards, including the appellants, would be strict liability, not absolute liability, as:
  • bodies carrying out dangerous activity such as transmission of electricity must bear the risk, including State entities;
  • such entities can spread the loss through insurance or higher pricing and are expected to account for such risks;
  • therefore, such bodies are liable to compensate the injured or deceased irrespective of any fault on their part, provided that none of the exceptions to the rule of strict liability apply to the facts of the case; and
  • the court relied on Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar (supra), where it was held that the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (supra) also applies to electricity related cases.

Re. Yardstick of compensation

• The Supreme Court, relying on Raman vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited[15], which in turn relied on Balram Prasad vs. Kunal Saha[16], observed as follows:
  • the multiplier method used under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1888, cannot be directly applied to electrocution cases, as done by the High Court in the impugned judgment;
  • the Electricity Act, 2003, provides for the liability of the licensee to pay compensation in certain cases under Section 57, but it does not provide for the method to calculate it.
  • the principle of just, reasonable and fair compensation will govern the calculation, based on the person’s income and other related claims.
• The Supreme Court was pleased to allow both the Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court was pleased to hold and direct as under:
  • writ petitions seeking compensation filed by the respondents were not maintainable as disputed questions of facts were involved;
  • set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judge; and
  • the outcome of these proceedings will not affect the right of the Respondents to pursue available alternate remedies against the Appellant before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion

This is a significant judgment by the Supreme court as it clarifies that compensation claims against the electricity boards are governed by the principles of strict liability, and they may be required to compensate the victims irrespective of any fault of their own, provided that none of the exceptions to the rule of strict liability apply to the facts of the case. This decision also reinforces 2 (two) important propositions: (a) if questions of fact are disputed, then writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be an appropriate remedy in cases of electrocution; and (b) the assessment of compensation will be governed by the principle of just, reasonable and fair compensation, based on the person’s income and other related claims.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Anupam Varma Partner

Nikhil Sharma Partner

Shivali Rawat Associate

For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com.

[1] 2026 INSC 847 (decided on August 12, 2026)

[2] Mrs. Rekha vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Ors., W.P. No. 1383 of 2020 (decided on August 4, 2022); Kumari Chandana K. vs. Department of Energy, Karnataka and Ors., W.P. No. 53302 of 2018; and Muizz Ahmad Shariff vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., W.P. No. 6087 of 2019

[3] Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Mrs. Rekha and Ors., W.A. No. 861 of 2022 (decided on January 23, 2025); and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Muizz Ahmad Shariff and Ors., W.A. No. 865 of 2022

[4] Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Rekha and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10659 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24849 of 2025

[5] Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs. Muizz Ahmad Shariff and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24854 of 2025

[6] Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of H.P, (2021) 6 SCC 771; T.N. Cements Corporation Limited vs. Unicon Engineers, (2025) 4 SCC 1, (3 Judges)

[7] Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) vs. Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298

[8] M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395

[9] Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330

[10] Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, (1997) 9 SCC 552

[11] Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Company Limited vs. Vandry, 1920 SCC OnLine PC 10

[12] Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527

[13] M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari, (2002) 2 SCC 162

[14] Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd, (2001) 2 SCC 9

[15] Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, (2014) 15 SCC 1

[16] Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384