The Legal Issue
The core legal issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether the right to electricity, recognised as an essential component of the right to life and shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution, could compel CESC Limited (a 'State' instrumentality for electricity distribution) to provide a domestic connection to individuals occupying the rooftop of a high-risk commercial building without proper authorisation and in violation of fire safety norms. The learned Single Judge had previously dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioners' claim of prior sub-meter consumption false and noting the building's high-risk classification and exclusive commercial use.
Court's Reasoning
Justice Shampa Sarkar, upholding the Single Judge's decision, reasoned that while Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to electricity, this right is not absolute. The Court emphasised that the welfare and safety of the general public, particularly the occupants of a high-risk building, hold a greater legal perspective than an individual's right to a domestic connection in an unauthorised and hazardous setup. The petitioners' continued encroachment on the rooftop, which prevented the issuance of a fire safety certificate, rendered it inequitable and contrary to law to direct a new domestic connection. The Court explicitly held that such an order would be unjust, unfair, and hazardous to other occupants. Upon balancing the equities, the Court concluded that public interest must supersede private interest in this case, especially since the appellants failed to take remedial measures to address the fire department's concerns. CESC, as a 'State' under Article 12, was obligated to act in public interest.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant as it reinforces the principle that fundamental rights, while expansive, are subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly when public safety and welfare are at stake. It clarifies that the right to essential services like electricity under Article 21 cannot be invoked to legitimise or facilitate unauthorised and unsafe occupation, especially in high-risk commercial premises. For advocates, this judgment underscores the critical importance of ensuring legal occupancy and compliance with all statutory safety regulations, such as fire safety certificates, when seeking utility connections. It provides a strong precedent for utility providers to deny services where such connections would compromise public safety or violate building codes, even if it impacts an individual's claim to an essential service.