Bombay High Court Permits PIL Against MERC Over Record Destruction
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has allowed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), targeting its decision to halt audio-video recordings of proceedings and destroy past records. The Court has also approved the impleadment of former MERC officials, holding them accountable for the alleged erasure of public documents.
Background
- PIL Details
Filed in 2018 by consumer activist Anil Wadpalliwar, the petition challenges MERC’s resolution taken on September 4, 2018, to discontinue recording hearings and destroy old recordings.
- Legal Breach Alleged
The petitioner claims MERC violated Sections 8 and 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005, by erasing public records essential for transparency in quasi-judicial proceedings.
Court’s Decision
- Impleadment of Officials Allowed
The Court permitted adding former MERC chairperson, members, and secretary as respondents. The petitioner has four weeks to update the PIL.
- No New Cause of Action
MERC contended that including former officials transformed the case into a criminal one. The Court disagreed, ruling that the amendment relates to developments within the original relief sought, not a new issue.
- Violation of Interim Order
Despite a High Court stay on recording destruction issued on October 12, 2018, MERC allegedly proceeded with destroying recordings—leading the Court to view this as a gross breach of legal norms and public trust.
Significance
- Transparency in Quasi-Judicial Bodies
The ruling emphasizes that regulatory authorities like MERC cannot remove or conceal public records arbitrarily, especially when subject to legal restraints.
- Accountability for Officials
By bringing former officials into the PIL, the Court ensures personal accountability rather than allowing institutional shielding.
- Precedent for Public Records
This decision reinforces that public bodies must preserve records, particularly those concerning hearings, decisions, and regulatory oversight.
What Happens Next
- Amendment by Petitioner
The petitioner will update the PIL to include the specified officials as respondents within four weeks.
- Further Legal Proceedings
Once amended, the case will proceed on its merits, with the Court examining both the legality of record destruction and the officials’ roles.
- Judicial Oversight Continues
The Supreme Court had earlier directed the High Court to decide on the amendment before addressing the core PIL arguments.
Conclusion
By allowing the PIL and ensuring inclusion of former MERC officials, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the importance of preserving public records and maintaining transparency in regulatory processes. The decision underscores that when public bodies override court orders or statutory mandates, individuals involved cannot escape responsibility. This case serves as a caution to statutory bodies that procedural compliance and accountability cannot be disregarded, even under the guise of administrative decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments