The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal filed by the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) against the CERC’s February 13, 2026 order concerning the implementation of market coupling for the Day-Ahead Market (DAM). The Tribunal ruled that while the CERC proceeding qualified as an “order” under Section 111(1) of the Electricity Act, IEX was ultimately not a “person aggrieved” because the order was only a tentative, non-binding precursor to the actual regulations.
Tribunal Review of the CERC Market Coupling Directive
The appeal stemmed from the CERC’s proceedings dated July 23, 2025 (Petition No. 8/SM/2025), which directed the initiation of market coupling for the Day-Ahead Market (DAM) in a round-robin mode by January 2026. The Tribunal analyzed whether this proceeding constituted an appealable “order” or a non-appealable legislative/pre-legislative step.
Appealability and ‘Order’ Classification
The Tribunal concluded that the impugned proceeding dated July 23, 2025, which contained a decision to initiate the market coupling process, satisfied the requirement of being an “order” under Section 111(1) of the Electricity Act, regardless of subsequent attempts by CERC to rename it ‘Directions’. However, the Tribunal distinguished this from legislative action (Regulations made under Section 178), which are generally immune from appeal before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal determined the proceeding was not quasi-judicial because there was no contest between two parties being adjudicated, nor was there a duty to act judicially. It was also deemed not part of the legislative exercise for making Regulations, as it did not change existing conditions or rules, nor did it conform to the prescribed procedures (2005 Rules or 2023 Regulations) for regulation-making.
Status of the Appellant as a “Person Aggrieved”
The core finding against IEX was that it failed the test of being a “person aggrieved”. The Tribunal noted that the CERC order:
- Did not cause immediate prejudice or fasten any liability on IEX, as actual implementation was contingent upon separate Regulations being made.
- Did not disable IEX from carrying on its operations as they existed prior to the order.
- The expected implementation date of January 2026 had already passed by the time judgment was reserved on February 5, 2026, without any final Regulations being issued.
Therefore, any grievance regarding potential loss of business or adverse impact on competition would only arise after the final Regulations are notified and implemented. The appeal was deemed premature.
Context of SEBI Order and Integrity Concerns
The Appellant introduced serious allegations based on a SEBI prima facie order dated October 15, 2025, suggesting the CERC decision-making process was tainted by insider trading leading to improper gains of Rs. 173 Crores. The Tribunal acknowledged the gravity of the external allegations against CERC officials but emphasized:
- The SEBI order was an ex-parte interim order based on preliminary findings.
- The CERC order was passed and signed by the Chairperson and four Members, and no allegations of collusion or lack of application of mind were leveled against them personally.
While noting the need for the CERC to maintain integrity, the Tribunal held that the SEBI findings did not vitiate the regulatory process under review, stating the attempt to link them was outside the scope of Section 111 jurisdiction.
Conclusion and Disposition
The Tribunal was satisfied that the impugned proceedings fell within the ambit of an “order” but found the Appellant was not “a person aggrieved”, consequently denying relief. The Appeal, and all associated IAs, were disposed of. The Tribunal explicitly stated its order would not disable IEX from challenging the final Regulations, if made, in appropriate future legal proceedings.
Furthermore, the CERC was advised to ensure that officers implicated in the SEBI order dated October 15, 2025, remain kept away from the market coupling Regulation-making exercise until all related proceedings are concluded.
Source: BSE
