ENERGY AND HUMAN PERCEPTION OF STATE PRESENCE

INTRODUCTION

Energy is not merely an economic commodity or a technical service. In modern society, electricity is one of the most visible ways through which people experience the presence, capacity and legitimacy of the State. A functioning electricity connection can represent government infrastructure, public administration, development, security and inclusion. Conversely, prolonged power failures, unequal access or arbitrary disconnections can create a perception of State absence or institutional failure.

The concept of “human perception of State presence” therefore examines how citizens experience the State through essential infrastructure. Roads, hospitals, water, sanitation, electricity and public transport transform constitutional promises into everyday realities. Energy is particularly important because it enables many other public services: hospitals require electricity, schools depend upon lighting and digital systems, water systems require pumping, communications require power, and households increasingly depend upon electricity for basic living conditions.

Indian constitutional law does not expressly recognise a standalone fundamental right to electricity. However, Article 21 has progressively been interpreted to protect conditions necessary for a dignified life. The legal significance of electricity can therefore arise indirectly through rights to life, dignity, health, livelihood, housing, education and equality.

LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

In India, the Electricity Act, 2003 provides the principal statutory framework for generation, transmission, distribution, trading and supply of electricity. Section 43 creates an important statutory obligation concerning supply of electricity to premises when an application is made by an owner or occupier, subject to the statutory framework.

The constitutional foundation is broader. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, while Articles 14, 19 and the Directive Principles influence the State's responsibility to create conditions in which constitutional citizenship can be meaningfully exercised.

The Supreme Court's expansion of Article 21 has transformed the understanding of State presence. The State is not perceived only through police, courts or administrative offices. It is also experienced through whether a person has access to the infrastructure necessary for ordinary life.

In this framework, electricity can be understood as an “infrastructural manifestation of the State”. Where electricity reaches remote communities, the citizen may experience the State as physically present. Where basic infrastructure is absent for long periods, the constitutional promise may appear distant or ineffective.

KEY ISSUES AND PRINCIPLES

ENERGY AS VISIBLE STATE CAPACITY

The State's legitimacy is partly experienced through delivery of essential services. Electricity infrastructure converts governmental policy into a tangible daily experience. A functioning grid, electricity connection, street lighting, hospital power supply and rural electrification programme can therefore operate as visible evidence of State capacity.

This does not mean that every electricity failure automatically creates a constitutional violation. Courts generally distinguish between an enforceable legal entitlement and broader governmental responsibilities.

ELECTRICITY AS AN ENABLER OF OTHER RIGHTS

Electricity is closely connected with other constitutional interests. Without reliable electricity, healthcare facilities may be impaired, water supply may fail, schools may lose access to digital learning, and households may experience serious difficulties in maintaining basic living conditions.

The relationship is therefore often indirect: the legal claim may not be “I possess an absolute constitutional right to a particular quantity of electricity”, but rather “the State's conduct concerning electricity has interfered with another constitutionally protected right.”

This distinction became particularly important in South African constitutional jurisprudence.

STATE PRESENCE AND HUMAN DIGNITY

Human dignity is not limited to protection from physical abuse. Modern constitutionalism increasingly considers the material conditions necessary for meaningful human existence.

In Chameli Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court explained that the right to shelter includes access to basic infrastructure and civic amenities, including electricity and roads, because housing must permit a person to live and develop as a human being. The Court therefore connected infrastructure with dignity and meaningful citizenship.

STATE PRESENCE AND LIVELIHOOD

In Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court recognised the relationship between the right to life and livelihood. The case demonstrates the broader constitutional principle that Article 21 cannot be interpreted as protecting mere physical existence while ignoring the conditions necessary for meaningful life.

The principle is relevant to energy because electricity increasingly determines productive capacity. Shops, small businesses, agricultural equipment, refrigeration, digital work and educational activity can depend upon reliable electricity.

STATE PRESENCE AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES

In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court treated access to emergency medical treatment as connected with the constitutional protection of life and held that the State has positive responsibilities concerning essential healthcare.

The broader significance for energy law is that constitutional government may require active institutional arrangements rather than merely non-interference. Where electricity is essential for hospitals and other life-supporting public infrastructure, energy governance becomes connected with the State's positive obligations.

PROCEDURAL PRESENCE OF THE STATE

State presence is also experienced through administrative fairness. A citizen may accept that electricity can be disconnected for lawful reasons, but arbitrary or unexplained disconnection can undermine trust in public institutions.

Joseph v City of Johannesburg is particularly important. The South African Constitutional Court held that electricity was an important basic municipal service and that residents were entitled to procedural fairness before termination of the service. The Court required adequate notice and an opportunity for affected persons to respond.

Thus, State presence is not simply the physical existence of infrastructure; it also includes fair decision-making surrounding that infrastructure.

CASE LAWS

Chameli Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 2 SCC 549

The Supreme Court connected the right to shelter with the infrastructure necessary for dignified life, including electricity and other civic amenities. The case demonstrates that infrastructure can form part of the material conditions of constitutional dignity.

Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

The Court recognised livelihood as an important component of Article 21. The case supports the proposition that constitutional life must be understood in substantive rather than purely biological terms.

Francis Coralie Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608

The Supreme Court explained that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and the basic necessities required for meaningful existence. This provides an important constitutional foundation for analysing energy infrastructure as part of dignified living.

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37

The Court recognised positive State responsibilities in relation to access to emergency medical treatment. The case demonstrates how State obligations may arise when essential public systems are necessary to protect life.

Joseph v City of Johannesburg, CCT 43/09, [2009] ZACC 30

The South African Constitutional Court held that electricity is an important basic municipal service and required procedural fairness before termination. The judgment is highly significant for understanding electricity as a public-law relationship between residents and governmental institutions.

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development Association, CCT 44/22, [2022] ZACC 44

The South African Constitutional Court considered major reductions in electricity supply and their relationship with constitutional rights. The Court clarified that the Constitution does not create a simple, freestanding right to a particular quantity of electricity. However, electricity may be essential to the enjoyment of rights such as dignity, health, water and education. The Court also stressed that constitutional responsibility must be allocated to the appropriate governmental institution rather than automatically imposed on every State entity.

The case is particularly important because it shows the boundary between “electricity as a resource” and “electricity as a means through which constitutional rights are realised.”

TM Sibanyoni and Sibanyoni Family v Van Der Merwe, [2021] ZALCC 33

The South African Land Claims Court considered electricity access for ESTA occupiers and connected basic services with dignity, housing and security of tenure. The case illustrates how electricity can become part of the material conditions necessary for historically disadvantaged communities to experience genuine State protection and inclusion.

United Democratic Movement v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd, [2023] ZAGPPHC 1949

The High Court dealt with the constitutional consequences of electricity shortages and load-shedding. The court recognised that although the Constitution does not expressly guarantee electricity, electricity failures can affect rights including dignity, life, healthcare, water, education and environmental protection.

CONCLUSION

Energy is a powerful medium through which citizens perceive whether the State is present, capable, fair and responsive. Electricity poles, transformers, meters, public lighting, rural connections and functioning hospitals are physical manifestations of public authority and developmental policy.

At the same time, State presence cannot be measured simply by the existence of infrastructure. A constitutional State must also provide electricity through lawful, rational, equitable and procedurally fair institutions.

The central legal principle is therefore not that every citizen possesses an unlimited constitutional right to uninterrupted electricity. Rather, electricity has become so deeply embedded in modern social life that State decisions concerning energy can directly affect constitutionally protected interests.

The concept of “human perception of State presence” consequently provides a useful bridge between energy law and constitutional law. Reliable and equitable energy infrastructure can strengthen citizenship, dignity, equality and public trust, while persistent energy exclusion or arbitrary deprivation can make the State appear absent even where governmental institutions formally exist.

Energy governance should therefore be evaluated not only through efficiency, affordability and reliability, but also through the constitutional question: HOW DOES THE ORDINARY PERSON EXPERIENCE THE STATE THROUGH THE ENERGY SYSTEM?