Senior Advocate Shyam Divan flagged that the Discoms vs JSW case was shifted from the Supreme Court’s roster bench without explanation, raising serious concerns. The Court has now directed the matter to be listed before the appropriate bench in December.
A hearing before the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the dispute between the Rajasthan electricity distribution companies (discoms) and a JSW Group subsidiary saw an unexpected twist after Senior Advocate Shyam Divan complained that the case was removed from the roster bench without any reason.
Because of this objection, the Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale ordered that the matter should be listed before the proper roster bench in December. This happened on a day when the lawyers had only asked for an adjournment.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Scraps JSW Steel’s Rs 19,700 Cr Deal, Orders Bhushan Power Liquidation
Shyam Divan, who appeared for three State-owned power companies, pointed out that the matter was not supposed to be listed before the bench hearing it that day. He explained that the case had earlier come before a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kumar, who was handling the roster.
After that, Justice Alok Aradhe recused himself. Later, it was listed before another electricity-related roster bench headed by Justice PS Narasimha. Divan raised concern by saying:
“I should mention one factor which is this matter came up before a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar who was the roster bench, then Justice [Alok] Aradhe recused himself. So it was listed before another roster bench for electricity matters presided over by Justice [PS] Narasimha. It came up but it didn’t reach; then Justice Narasimha rolled all the matters for a week, but suddenly we find that it has moved from there to here.”
Hearing this, Justice Mithal responded that the bench was not keen on taking up the case, saying: “We are not interested” in dealing with the matter.
But Divan pressed further and said:
“No, no. It is a cause of deep concern for me because once it comes up before a roster bench, how does it suddenly migrate?”
Justice Mithal replied:
“You know better about the working of the Registry!”
To this, Divan remarked humorously:
“I wish I did!”
The Court suggested that the case might have been marked to the present bench by nomination of the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Divan said he had no information about that and repeated that the matter was earlier listed before Justice Narasimha and had only been rolled over; there was no recusal from the Narasimha bench.
Finally, the Court decided to adjourn the matter and directed that it should go back before the appropriate roster bench. Justice Mithal once again clarified:
“See, we are not interested in any particular matter.”
Making a light-hearted comment, Justice Varale told Divan:
“Mr Divan, in electricity matters, some little shocks are expected.”
Divan responded while walking away:
“Hopefully no [more] shocks.”
This long-running controversy is linked to a lignite mining project of the Rajasthan government, which is handled by South West Mining Limited (SWML), part of the JSW Group. In 2006, a consortium of JSW Energy Limited, SWML and Raj West Power Limited (RWPL) was set up for this mining and power project.
Later, Barmer Lignite Mining Company Limited (BLMCL) was formed as a joint venture between RWPL and the State-owned Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Limited (RSSML).
BLMCL holds the mining lease for the Kapurdi and Jalipa blocks in Barmer and supplies lignite to RWPL, also known as JSW Energy (Barmer), which generates electricity for Rajasthan’s State discoms.
In 2016, the State power companies approached the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) seeking data about lignite mining, payments made by BLMCL to SWML, and the actual expenses incurred by SWML.
In April 2023, the RERC directed SWML to provide the actual monthly mining expenses from the start of the project, noting that the final price affects consumers.
However, SWML refused to provide the information and went to the Rajasthan High Court, claiming confidentiality. A single-judge dismissed the challenge in August 2023. A Division Bench in February 2025 granted relief to SWML.
Meanwhile, the State discoms had already approached the Supreme Court in 2024 against certain observations made by the same High Court Division Bench in a Public Interest Litigation concerning low electricity tariffs and the bidding process for the power project.
Later, they also challenged the 2025 High Court order that favoured SWML.
The discoms argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court Division Bench did not have the correct roster to hear the matter and that confidentiality clauses in private contracts cannot override statutory obligations.
In April 2025, a bench led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna allowed RERC to continue its proceedings but directed that no final order should be passed until the Supreme Court hears the matter.
On August 25, Justice Sanjay Kumar’s bench ordered SWML to produce original records and data before the RERC along with the concerned witness, noting that SWML had earlier failed to honour an undertaking.
The bench clarified:
“We, however, clarify that the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the RERC, with regard to disclosure of details, would not extend to or cover the original records and data that would be produced by respondent No. 1, pursuant to this order.”
Justice Alok Aradhe then recused himself from hearing the case on October 28. Later, the matter came before a bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar on November 4, but the case could not be taken up that day.
The cause-list now shows that the matter was moved to the bench led by Justice Mithal, which led to Tuesday’s exchange in court.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Balbir Singh, and P. Chidambaram appeared for various respondents, along with several other advocates including Aman Anand, Aman Dixit, Natasha Debroy, Srishti Gupta, Shashwat Singh and others.
Appearing for the Rajasthan discoms were Shyam Divan and advocates Kartik Seth, Shilpa Saini, Raghav Sharma, Shubhankar Singh, Lakshmi Kant Srivastava and KM Abish.
Case Title:
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors v South West Mining Limited & Ors
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 26590/2024
