IEX provided clarification regarding a recent February 13, 2026 order from the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) dismissing the company’s plea in the market coupling case. IEX confirmed the news article refers to the disposal of an Appeal challenging a July 23, 2025 CERC directive. The company stated it has already disclosed this order and clarified that its business operations are not immediately affected as full implementation hinges on future separate regulations.
IEX Responds to Market Coupling News
The Indian Energy Exchange Ltd. (IEX) issued a formal clarification in response to media reports concerning an Order issued by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) on February 13, 2026. This Order disposed of an Appeal filed by IEX challenging the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (CERC) Suo-Motu Order dated July 23, 2025. This CERC directive related to the implementation of market coupling for the Day-Ahead Market (DAM).
Status of the APTEL Order
IEX confirmed that the news article accurately reflects the disposal of the Appeal by APTEL. However, IEX noted that this Order simply means the initial Appeal challenging the CERC’s July 2025 directives is concluded at the Tribunal stage. The company further emphasized that it had already submitted the requisite disclosure regarding this APTEL Order in compliance with listing regulations, as detailed in Annexure-A of the communication.
Clarification on Market Coupling Implementation
The proceedings detailed in the CERC’s July 23, 2025 directive were aimed at initiating the process for market coupling, specifically proposing the coupling of the Day-Ahead Market (DAM) in a round-robin mode by January 2026. Crucially, the CERC Order itself recognized that the final provisions for market coupling and the Market Coupling Operator (MCO) would only come into effect when decided by the Commission in accordance with Regulations to be specified separately. As of the date of the clarification, no such separate Regulations had been made.
IEX confirmed that its operations were continuing as normal. The CERC’s directive was essentially a precursor step in the regulatory rulemaking process. Consequently, the Appellant’s contention regarding negotiations taking place (Query a) was deemed inapplicable, as the APTEL decision is the outcome of a legal proceeding available in the public domain. Furthermore, the company asserted it was not aware of any undisclosed material information that could explain recent share price movements.
Legal Proceedings Context
The Tribunal acknowledged that the proceedings dated 23.07.2025 were administrative Directions, not quasi-judicial orders, and thus not fully appealable under the relevant section of the Electricity Act, reinforcing the CERC’s regulatory authority in rulemaking. The Tribunal concluded that while the proceedings constituted an “order” under the Act, the Appellant failed the test of being a “person aggrieved” because the directive was tentative and required subsequent binding regulations for actual implementation, meaning no immediate adverse civil consequences had materialized.
SEBI Investigation Update
The Tribunal noted the Appellant’s attempt to link the case to an SEBI ex-parte interim order dated 15.10.2025 concerning alleged insider trading involving certain CERC officials. The Tribunal found the allegations scandalous and irrelevant to the core validity of the regulatory roadmap. However, as a measure to safeguard integrity, the Tribunal advised the CERC to ensure the implicated officials remain kept away from the Regulation making exercise concerning market coupling until the SEBI investigation and the CERC’s internal fact-finding are concluded.
Conclusion on Appeal
The Appeal and all related Interlocutory Applications (IAs) were disposed of. The Tribunal held that while the impugned proceedings fall under the definition of an “order”, the Appellant was not a “person aggrieved” entitled to relief in this Appeal, as the core implementation was contingent upon future, separate Regulations. The Tribunal protected the Appellant’s future rights by clarifying that the disposal of this appeal does not bar the Appellant from challenging the eventual Regulations when they are finally notified.
Source: BSE
