DAKSH’s State of Tribunals Report 2025 states that the tribunal operates with only 36 permanent staff members and the remaining 67 of a total 110 staff members are contractual8. Such reliance on temporary staff reduces productivity, continuity and contributes to inconsistency in registry operations9.
APTEL’s cause lists are frequently unpredictable due to a high volume of cases, frequent adjustments to hearing schedules due to vacancies, and pending matters10. The unpredictable part can be seen through cause lists of December, 2025 where it can be seen that Court 1 was not sitting from 15th to 23rd, similarly Court 2 was not sitting from 8th to 12rd, such patterns can be seen multiple times in cause lists uploaded on APTELs website. Adjournments and inconsistent scheduling also contribute towards prolonged litigation. In terms of bulk data, the tribunal does not publish case reports, disposal reports, hearing statistics or a long-term analysis of cases11. The absence of these data indicates a lack of transparency from the tribunal.
Many remand cases have been identified to fall into an “other reasons” category, which is neither clearly defined nor consistently justified.¹² Such remands undermine predictability in the appellate system and create uncertainty for stakeholders.
IV. Challenges and Recommendations for India’s Electricity Sector
The delays in case disposal by APTEL generate a series of systemic consequences that damage the electricity sector, weakening both regulatory effectiveness and market confidence. When electricity distribution companies and generating companies have to wait for years for appeals to be resolved it creates a ambiguity around things like tariff orders and open access approvals. Delayed adjudication also disrupts cash flows for existing projects, as entities cannot recover legitimate dues or adjust tariffs without clarity from the appellate body.
Small companies like distribution licensees, consumer associations and small renewable developers have a hard time getting what they need because the courts in Delhi are not working properly and it is expensive to go to court. This means that big companies with a lot of money have an advantage because they can afford to appeal decisions. The renewable developers face these problems. The local distribution licensees also face these problems. It makes people lose trust in the system that is supposed to resolve disputes in the electricity market. It also makes it harder for India to switch to a system that uses renewable energy and is more competitive. The renewable energy market is very important, for Indias future.
The structural and procedural challenges with APTEL can be mitigated by strengthening capacity, increasing accessibility and enhancing transparency.
A start can be made with the filling of vacancies. Vacancies in the past have paralysed the tribunal and filling these positions is important to ensure that APTEL can constitute multiple benches, reduce pendency and conduct parallel hearings.
Strengthening the administrative structure of the tribunal is equally important. The current reliance on contractual staff must be reduced and step should be taken towards stable, adequately trained permanent workforce with specialised knowledge in regulatory processes and case management.
Reviving the circuit benches (temporary or part-time benches of a court or tribunal that function in locations other than their permanent or regional headquarters) envisaged under the Electricity Act is another essential step. Functional benches in cities such as Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata would significantly improve accessibility, particularly for smaller entities and consumer groups that cannot afford frequent travel to Delhi. Alongside restoration of circuit benches, APTEL must undergo a digital transformation that includes reliable e-filing, standardised digital records and smooth hybrid hearing options. Standardized digital records and dependable e-filing minimize procedural disruptions as hearings are less likely to be postponed for rectification, refiling, or record verification when pleadings, annexures, and previous orders are consistently accessible in digital format. Additionally, better case management and consistent listings are made possible by digitization. Similarly, hybrid hearings can address such issues making sure that proceedings are not delayed due to scheduling conflicts or short notice listings, particularly APTEL which operates with limited bench strength.
Procedural reforms are also very important for a tribunal. APTEL must develop and publish a transparent framework for how to exercise its remand powers. Currently, the high volume of remands, including many for undefined or discretionary reasons contributes to prolonged litigation cycles. Similarly, tribunal should enforce scheduling practices, such as fixed timelines for filings and listings of final hearing. Inducing standard case management techniques, such as pre-hearing conferences16 and summarized Interlocutory Applications17, which would further ease proceedings.
Transparency is the foundation for public institutions. APTEL should publish monthly reports or statistics about pendency of cases, their age, disposal timelines, adjournment patterns and compliance with the statutory timeline of 180-day for disposal of cases under section 111 of the Electricity Act. If this timeline is not being complied with, the tribunal shall record its reasons in writing for not disposing of the appeal within the said period. This information would ensure transparency and enable relevant stakeholders like litigants, researchers and lawyers to assess performance of the tribunal.
