1.Leave granted.
2.Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation1 challenges the imputation of SignatureliabilityNot Verified upon itself, and the consequent order to pay compensation made by a NAVEEN D 1 KPTC 2 In WP No. 1383 of 2020 subsequent confirmation by a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeals preferred thereagainst3.
3.It has to be noted, right at the outset, that the impugned judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of three appeals out of which the KPTC has chosen to file the present appeal against only two of the three. In the present case, respondent No. 1, namely Rekha, is the widow of one N. Subramanya who died due to an incident of electrocution on 22 February 2018. A first information report was registered the same day, setting into motion the law, the outcome thereof is not part of the record. Apparently, the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition, the subject matter of these appeals. The Appellant herein opposed the petitions on the ground of inter alia maintainability; lack of fault on the part of the Appellant; and the presence of disputed questions of fact. Rejecting these objections, both the learned single Judge and Division Bench held the writ petitions to be maintainable since what was sought by the writ petitioners is a remedy for tortious act of the State and such a prayer not requiring exhausting of private law remedy before the Civil Court. On merits the court held the appellant liable, to grant compensation for which the framework of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19884 was adopted. Both the Courts awarded Rs. 25,52,500/- with interest payable at the rate of 6% after three months of the date of judgment.
4.In Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 24854 of 2025, the facts in brief were that the Respondent therein, namely Muizz Ahmad Shariff, had jumped onto the roof of a neighboring building to retrieve a cricket ball, when in the process of doing so, he came in contact with a 66KV Line and was severely injured. The learned Single Judge awarded Rs. 44,32,050/- which was upheld by the Division Bench.
5.The questions to be decided by us are the maintainability of the writ petition and the yardstick that is to be used in determining compensation in cases of electrocution. 3 WA No. 861 of 2022 4 MVA We have heard the learned Solicitor General, learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
6.The question of maintainability of the writ petition is no longer res-integra. Numerous judgments of this Court have delineated on this question. We may refer to one such judgment where the principles regarding maintainability have been culled out. In Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.5, it has been observed: “27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” These principles have been referred to with approval by a bench of three judges in T.N. Cements Corpn. Ltd. v. Unicon Engineers6 where it further stood clarified that: “55. It has been well-settled through a legion of judicial pronouncements of this Court that the writ courts, despite the 6 (2025) 4 SCC 1. availability of alternative remedies, may exercise writ jurisdiction at least in three contingencies — (i) where there is a violation of principles of natural justice or fundamental rights; (ii) where an order in a proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction; or (iii) where the vires of an Act is challenged… ”
7.Specifically in the context of cases of electrocution, whether or not a petition under Article 226 is maintainable, is also in the realm of the well-settled law. In Chairman, Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) v. Sukamani Das7, G.T. Nanavati J. made observations directly relevant for us: “6. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petitions even though they were not fit cases for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court went wrong in proceeding on the basis that as the deaths had taken place because of electrocution as a result of the deceased coming into contact with snapped live wires of the electric transmission lines of the appellants, that “admittedly/prima facie amounted to negligence on the part of the appellants”. The High Court failed to appreciate that all these cases were actions in tort and negligence was required to be established firstly by the claimants. The mere fact that the wire of the electric transmission line belonging to Appellant 1 had snapped and the deceased had come in contact with it and had died was not by itself sufficient for awarding compensation. It also required to be examined whether the wire had snapped as a result of any negligence of the appellants and under which circumstances the deceased had come in contact with the wire. In view of the specific defences raised by the appellants in each of these cases they deserved an opportunity to prove that proper care and precautions were taken in maintaining the transmission lines and yet the wires had snapped because of circumstances beyond their control or unauthorised intervention of third parties or that the deceased had not died in the manner stated by the petitioners. These questions could not have been decided properly on the basis of affidavits only. It is the settled legal position that where disputed questions of facts are involved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy. The High Court has not and could not have held that the disputes in these cases were raised for the sake of raising them and that there was no substance therein. The High Court should have directed the writ petitioners to approach the civil court as it was done in OJC No. 5229 of 1995.”
8.What is been held here is that if questions of fact are disputed, then Article 226 would not be an appropriate remedy in cases of electrocution.
9.The record reveals the following facts to be disputed in respect of : (A) Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 24849 of 2025: (i) Whether using an aluminium ladder while working in a coffee plantation, in such a manner that it came in contact with an 11 KV Line, constitutes negligence on the part of the respondent? (ii) Whether the owner of the coffee plantation was himself negligent for having provided the respondent with the aluminium ladder, in the first instance? (iii) Whether the backup relays, which according to the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, were in satisfactory condition, were actually so or not? (iv) Whether the appellant escapes liability because it was responsible for maintenance of electric lines only above a certain voltage and as such, if at all, liability would be on the Respondent No. 2 in the present case? (B) Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 24854 of 2025 : (i) Whether the statutorily mandated distance between the electric line and the building, at 4 metres, was complied with or not; (ii) In terms of the undertaking dated 19th April 2000, would make the building owner solely liable for payment of compensation; (iii) Whether negligence can be imputed to the appellant since it provided connection to the building in question, if it indeed was the case that the statutorily mandated minimum distance was complied with or not;
10.The High Court had, in effect, held the disputed facts to not be of much relevance because, according to it, it is the standard of absolute liability that is applicable and not strict liability. Since absolute liability obviously has no exceptions, the presence of disputed facts, if at all, would not absolve the appellant herein. In deciding the correctness of this finding, we must then go to the meaning of absolute liability and strict liability.
11.Absolute liability, as the name itself suggests, is a kind of liability that leaves no scope for exception from such liability. To put it simply, the person who has been deemed to be absolutely liable shall be so liable irrespective of the facts and circumstances in which such imputation has been made upon them. It is applied only to enterprises and comes into play when the activity in which the enterprise is engaged, is inherently dangerous or hazardous and someone has been harmed as a result of the accident that has taken place in performing such activity. The classic case in this regard is the Constitution Bench decision in Oleum Gas Leak Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram - Oleum Gas)8 where an industrial unit of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers, located in Delhi, suffered a leak of Oleum Gas leading to danger to the lives of the people in the area. Bhagwati C.J. held thus: “31. …We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build our own jurisprudence and we cannot countenance an argument that merely because the law in England does not recognise the rule of strict and absolute liability in cases of hazardous or inherently dangerous activities or the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) LR 3 HL 330 : 19 LT 220 : (1861-73) All ER Rep 1] as developed in England recognises certain limitations and exceptions, we in India must hold back our hands and not venture to evolve a new principle of liability since English courts have not done so. We have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which are concommitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability merely because it has not been so done in England. We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part… We would therefore hold that where in enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) LR 3 HL 330 : 19 LT 220 : (1861-73) All ER Rep 1]” (emphasis supplied)
12.Now let us look to the concept of strict liability. The general rule is that
when a person collects or brings upon his land anything that is likely to cause
mischief and if such thing escapes, then this person is liable for all natural consequences that follow. (See Rylands v. Fletcher9 ; Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum10,). Relevant observations of the Privy Council
in this regard made in Quebec Railway, Light, Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v.
Vandry11, are reproduced as under:
“25. Two decisions which were pressed on their Lordships attention require particular examination namely Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. Roy [[1902] A.C. 220.] and Dumphy v. Montreal Light Heat and Power Co. [[1907] A.C. 454.] . The former is a case of damage by the escape of sparks from a locomotive engine and the decision in terms is in line with the well-known authorities of Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co. [[1860] 5 H. & N. 679.] and Hammersmith and City Ry. Co. v. Brand [L.R. 4 H.L. 171.] it is case of “plain words authorizing the doing of the very thing complained of”. Dumphy v. Montreal Light Heat and Power Co. [[1907] A.C. 454.] is a case of high-tension electricity released by the act of a third party's workman whom the jury acquitted of negligence. No specific article of the Code is mentioned and the presence of high tension current in the cable was only the causa sine qua nonand the human action which released it was the causa causans of the accident. There was statutory authority to circulate high-tension electricity overhead but on the simple issue, whether the damage caused by the
9 (1868) LR 3 HL 330 11 1920 SCC OnLine PC 10
escape of that electricity was caused by the company's negligence it was held that no negligence had been proved and indeed but for the act of a stranger who himself was not careless, the company's electricity would have done no harm to anybody.
26. Whether in the present cases the evidence established affirmatively a case of negligence against the defendants is a question on which the Supreme Court arrived at no definite conclusion. Had it been necessary the respondents would have been entitled to claim before their Lordships' Board that this issue should be decided now, since the terms imposed on the appellants under the special leave to appeal bound them to rely on points of law only, but did not preclude the respondents from meeting those points upon the facts in any way which the evidence warranted. In the view, however, above taken of the case no decision on
this question is needed.”
A subsequent decision in 2008 titled Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar12, discussed this rule in the following terms:
“22. Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendant's
activity rather than, as in negligence, the way in which it is carried on (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 247). There are many
activities which are so hazardous that they may constitute a danger to the person or property of another. The principle of strict liability states
that the undertakers of these activities have to compensate for the damage caused by them irrespective of any fault on their part. As Fleming says “permission to conduct such activity is in effect made conditional on its absorbing the cost of the accidents it causes, as an appropriate item of its overheads” (see Fleming on Torts, 6th Edn., p. 302). … 24. The basis of the doctrine of strict liability is twofold: (i) The people who engage in particularly hazardous activities should bear the burden of the risk of damage that their activities generate, and (ii) it operates as a loss distribution mechanism, the person who does such hazardous
activity (usually a corporation) being in the best position to spread the loss via insurance and higher prices for its products (vide Torts by Michael Jones, 4th Edn., p. 267). … 27. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [(1868) LR 3 HL 330 : (1861-73) All ER Rep 1] was subsequently interpreted to cover a variety of things likely to do mischief on escape, irrespective of whether they were dangerous per se e.g. water, electricity, explosions, oil, noxious fumes, colliery spoil, poisonous vegetation, a flagpole, etc. (see Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 13th Edn., p. 425) vide National Telephone Co. v. Baker [(1893) 2 Ch 186] , Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. Ltd.
v. Cape Town Tramways Co. Ltd. [(1902) AC 381 : (1900-03) All ER
Rep Ext 1316 (PC)] , Hillier v. Air Ministry [(1962) CLY 2084] , etc. In America, the rule was adapted and expressed in the following words “one who carried on an ultra-hazardous activity is liable to another whose person, land or chattels the actor should recognise as likely to be harmed by the unpreventable miscarriage of the activity for harm resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultra-hazardous, although the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm” (vide Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. 3, p. 41). … 35. However, we are now witnessing a swing once again in favour of the principle of strict liability. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the crude oil spill in 1988 on to the Alaska coastline from the oil tanker Exxon Valdez, and other similar incidents have shocked the conscience of people all over the world and have aroused thinkers to the dangers in industrial and other activities in modern
society. … 39. The decision in M.C. Mehta case [(1987) 1 SCC 395 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 37 : AIR 1987 SC 1086] related to a concern working for private
profit. However, in our opinion the same principle will also apply to statutory authorities (like the Railways), public corporations or local bodies which may be social utility undertakings not working for private
profit. 40. It is true that attempts to apply the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher against public bodies have not on the whole succeeded vide Administrative Law by P.P. Craig, 2nd Edn., p. 446, mainly because of the idea that a body which acts not for its own profit but for the benefit of the community should not be liable. However, in our opinion, this idea is based on a misconception. Strict liability has no element of moral censure. It is because such public bodies benefit the community that it
is unfair to leave the result of a non-negligent accident to lie fortuitously on a particular individual rather than to spread it among the community generally.”
It has to be noted that the judgment in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari13;
which arose from a suit for damages filed in a case of electrocution, this court
held the exception to the principle of strict liability not to be applicable. Since the
present case is also dealing with a matter concerning electrocution, the discussion
made therein is relevant for our purposes and accordingly reproduced below:
“7. It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the
voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy to his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the
electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
8. Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human
life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The
liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”. It
differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or
fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence
attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict
liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.”
13.Exceptions to this rule have been recognised in numerous judgments. Among others, reference can be made to Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.14 where the principles of the exception were reiterated. The relevant portion of Para 14 thereof is extracted hereunder: “14. … They are: (1) Consent of the plaintiff i.e. volenti non fit injuria. (2) Common benefit i.e. where the source of the danger is maintained for the common benefit of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is not liable for its escape. (3) Act of stranger i.e. if the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, the rule does not apply. (4) Exercise of statutory authority i.e. the rule will stand excluded either when the act was done under a statutory duty or when a statute provides otherwise. (5) Act of God or vis major i.e. circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility. (6) Default of the plaintiff i.e. if the damage is caused solely by the act or default of the plaintiff himself, the rule will not apply. (7) Remoteness of consequences i.e. the rule cannot be applied ad infinitum, because even according to the formulation of the rule made by Blackburn, J., the defendant is answerable only for all the damage “which is the natural consequence of its escape”.”
14.Now the question is whether in cases such as these i.e. electrocution of an individual, the standard of liability upon bodies such as the appellant is strict or absolute. We are of the considered view that to impose strict liability would be more appropriate, for not in all cases can it be said that the electricity boards are liable. The transmission of electricity is undoubtedly inherently dangerous. Those who carry out the inherently dangerous activity should bear the burden, and the State is no exception to that rule. Such enterprises operate on a loss distribution mechanism i.e. they are in the best position to spread the loss incurred through insurance or higher prices, as the case may be. It can also be said that they are expected to factor in these possibilities. It is for these reasons that they are liable to compensate the injured/deceased irrespective of any fault on their part, provided that none of the exceptions to the rule of strict liability apply to the case at hand. Granted that they would have taken all reasonable care to protect individuals from electrocution. We are supported in this view by the observations made in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, where it has been categorically held that the rule in Rylands (supra) applies to a number of different categories of cases inter alia, electricity also.
15.On the question of yardstick of compensation, we find this Court to have observed in a two-Judge Bench decision in Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.15, that the multiplier method cannot be applied to determine compensation in cases of electrocution. Since the calculation paradigm as provided for in connection with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is dependent on the multiplier, the scenario thereunder could not have been applied mutatis mutandis to electrocution cases, as done by the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is a matter of law that the Electricity Act 2003 does not provide for the method to calculate compensation. What it does provide is the liability of the licensee to pay compensation in certain scenarios under Section 57 thereof but does not say anything regarding the method applicable to calculating the same. This holding in Raman (supra) relies on Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha16. Be that as it may, the overarching principle of just and reasonable, fair compensation would govern the calculation here as well, based on the income of the person and other related claims.
16.Having held as above that there are disputed questions of facts involved, we are of the view that the Writ Petition seeking compensation filed by the respondent was not maintainable. While issuing notice, we had stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and by a subsequent order dated 18.12.2025, had ordered the payment of interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The impugned judgment of the Learned Division Bench as also the Single Judge are quashed and set aside. However, the end result here would be of no consequence to the remedy available to the respondent to take recourse to such alternate remedies as are available against the appellant before the concerned forum. As and when filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law, on an expeditious basis, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. It is further clarified that the amount of compensation paid in these proceedings shall not be recovered from the respondents and neither will it influence the total compensation as may be awarded in the appropriate proceedings, should it arrive at such a conclusion. Civil Appeal @ Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24854 of 2025
17.In view of the conclusion arrived at in the Civil Appeal @ arising out of SLP(C) No(s).24849 of 2025, the Respondents herein are also at liberty to take appropriate action in the above terms.
18.Both the Appeals are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Parties will bear their own costs. (SANJAY KAROL) (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH) New Delhi; August 12, 2026 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24849 OF 2025) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS REKHA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24854 OF 2025) J U D G M E N T
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
1.I have had the privilege of going through the erudite judgment by my esteemed Brother, Sanjay Karol, J. I am broadly in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at therein, both on the question of the maintainability of the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise, and on the yardstick to be applied in determining compensation in cases of electrocution. I consider it necessary, however, to append a few supplementary observations on these two aspects. ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND THE WRIT COURT’S JURISDICTION
2.The proposition that a writ court would ordinarily be reluctant to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact is well settled and finds due reflection in the judgment of this Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771, and reiterated by a three-Judge Bench in T.N. Cements Corpn. Ltd. v. Unicon Engineers (2025) 4 SCC 1. What I wish to emphasise, and supplement, is the corollary that follows from it: this proposition is a rule of prudence and practice, not a rule of inflexible or universal application ousting the jurisdiction of the writ court in all cases where disputed questions of fact arise. The mere existence of a dispute as to facts, without more, cannot, ipso facto, oust the writ court of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226.
3.The moot question which arises is what constitutes a “disputed question of fact” of a kind that ought to persuade a writ court to keep its hands off. In my considered view, it must be a genuine and substantive conflict between the parties on a plea which cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the material already on record, and whose resolution would necessarily require a deeper probe into the facts, ordinarily involving the recording of evidence, oral testimony, and cross-examination, these being the hallmarks of adjudication in civil or criminal proceedings. Where, on the other hand, such disputed facts can be resolved without undertaking detailed and elaborate exercise, whether because the claim is not seriously or genuinely disputed, or because the relevant fact in issue is easily discoverable without extensive scrutiny of the evidence on record, the mere fact that a party chooses to controvert certain facts or raises a dispute cannot, by itself, be a ground to shut out a writ petition. It is only where the dispute involves complex or serious questions of fact that cannot simply and easily be resolved by reference to the oral or documentary material already available that the exercise of writ jurisdiction ought, as a matter of prudence, to be declined.
4.This view finds support in the decisions of this Court. In Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda (1969) 3 SCC 769, this Court disapproved of the dismissal of a writ petition in limine on the sole ground that it involved disputed questions of fact. It was held, in paragraph 14, as follows: “14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.”
5.This aspect received further and more detailed consideration in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council (1970) 1 SCC 582, where it was observed that where a writ petition does not raise complicated questions of fact, and the claim cannot be characterised as frivolous, vexatious, or prima facie unjust, the High Court ought not to dismiss the petition in limine. The relevant observations, at paragraph 8, may be usefully extracted: “8. The High Court may, in exercise of its discretion, decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But the discretion is judicial: if the petition makes a claim which is frivolous, vexatious, or prima facie unjust, or may not appropriately be tried in a petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, the Court may decline to entertain the petition. But a party claiming to be aggrieved by the action of a public body or authority on the plea that the action is unlawful, high-handed, arbitrary or unjust is entitled to a hearing of its petition on the merits. Apparently the petition filed by the Company did not raise any complicated questions of fact for determination, and the claim could not be characterised as frivolous, vexatious or unjust…”
6.This Court, in State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 216, while dealing with a claim founded on an alleged breach of contract, highlighted that a seriously disputed question of fact touching upon breach of contract is not appropriately decided in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Paragraph 7 of the judgment is reproduced as follows: “7. In our view, it is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It is true that many matters could be decided after referring to the contentions raised in the affidavits and counter-affidavits, but that would hardly be a ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of alleged breach of contract. Whether the alleged non-supply of road permits by the appellants would justify breach of contract by the respondent would depend upon facts and evidence and is not required to be decided or dealt with in a writ petition. Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.”
7.The question was examined at some length by this Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553, where the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226, in the face of disputed facts alleged to have arisen out of a contract, fell for consideration. This Court held that the mere existence of disputed facts does not, without more, oust the writ jurisdiction, particularly where the facts are, in substance, largely admitted. The observations at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment are worth noting: “27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable. 28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 … the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution … this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.”
8.The aforesaid decisions, taken together, underscore the expansive and discretionary character of the writ jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution. That jurisdiction is, by its very nature, plenary, and subject to no fetters save those which the courts have, over time, imposed upon themselves reflecting judicial restraint. One such self-imposed restraint operates where an efficacious alternative remedy is available, and the matter involves serious disputed questions of fact; in such circumstances, the writ court would ordinarily decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and relegate the parties to the appropriate forum. But this restraint is born of judicial wisdom and experience, and not of any want of power. Where the disputed questions are not of a complicated nature and, more particularly, where the case involves an alleged violation of the fundamental rights of a citizen, the writ court may, in the sound exercise of its discretion, entertain the petition notwithstanding the existence of some disputed facts. This, in essence, remains a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, including, as I elaborate below, the nature of the liability sought to be fastened and whether the disputed facts bear upon its very applicability.
9.I find support for the above view in Magadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2022) 16 SCC 428, where, while considering the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226, this Court highlighted that while a High Court may, in a case involving disputed questions of fact, decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction, such abstention is not compelled as a matter of course. Where the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy warrants the exercise of its writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the disputed facts, such a view would not ordinarily be interfered with. It is precisely this objective assessment of the nature of the controversy that I now turn to, on the facts of the present appeals. ON THE STANDARD OF LIABILITY: STRICT, AND NOT ABSOLUTE
10.I am in agreement with my esteemed Brother that the standard of liability applicable to bodies such as the appellantCorporation, in cases of electrocution arising from the transmission of electricity, is one of strict liability, and not absolute liability. This distinction is not a semantic nicety; it carries decisive consequences for the very question of maintainability with which I am presently concerned. Absolute liability, as my learned Brother has explained, admits of no exception whatsoever; once an enterprise is shown to be engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is shown to have resulted therefrom, liability follows irrespective of the facts and circumstances in which the harm occurred. Had that been the applicable standard, the disputed facts urged by the appellant would be of no real consequence, since no exception could in any event absolve the appellant. Strict liability, however, is qualified by well-recognised exceptions, such as consent of the plaintiff, common benefit, act of a stranger, exercise of statutory authority, act of God, default of the plaintiff, and remoteness of consequence, as reiterated by this Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 9. It follows that once the applicable standard is strict, and not absolute liability, the question whether the facts of a given case attract one or more of these recognised exceptions ceases to be an academic one; it becomes a live and material question upon whose answer the very existence and extent of the appellant’s liability may turn. This, to my mind, is precisely why the disputed questions of fact catalogued by my learned Brother in paragraphs 9 and 10 of his judgment assume such significance in the present appeals, and why they cannot be brushed aside as being of no consequence to the ultimate result. ON THE APPLICABILITY OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRINCIPLES TO ELECTROCUTION CASES
11.On the question of the yardstick for compensation, I respectfully agree with my learned Brother’s conclusion, following Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 15 SCC 1, that the multiplier method engrafted in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be transplanted, as a matter of course or as a rigid or universal formula, into cases of electrocution. The Electricity Act, 2003 itself prescribes no method for computing compensation, and the multiplier method, being a statutory mechanism devised for a specific compensatory scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be treated as a default code applicable to every claim for compensation arising from a tortious act, merely because the tort happens to result in death or bodily injury.
12.Having said that, this conclusion does not mean that the principles evolved by this Court under Motor Vehicles Act jurisprudence are wholly irrelevant outside that Act. This Court has, on more than one occasion, drawn upon the standardised methodology developed in cases such as Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corpn. (2009) 6 SCC 121, Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, including the computation of dependency, deductions towards personal and living expenses, additions on account of future prospects, and conventional heads such as loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, as persuasive and pragmatic tools for arriving at “just” compensation even in cases falling outside the Motor Vehicles Act, where no other statutory code occupies the field. This Court, in cases, extended the logic of the multiplier method beyond motor accident claims on the ground that it is a logically sound and workable method productive of uniformity and predictability in awards. In Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197, this Court has, in a fact-situation far removed from motor accident claims, drawn upon and adapted these very principles to compute just compensation.
13.What emerges, therefore, is that while specific statutory formulae, such as the Second Schedule multiplier, cannot be mechanically transposed into an altogether different statutory or factual context such as the present one, certain underlying principles and heads of compensation developed under that jurisprudence are, in a sense, of a more general or universal application, being no more than judicially evolved facets of the broader and overarching principle of just and reasonable compensation. It is this latter, general principle, and not the former, statute-specific formula, that governs the assessment of compensation in cases of electrocution. The two propositions are not in tension: the Motor Vehicles Act is not a universal code binding this Court in every compensation claim, and yet this Court has invoked some of the determinants, considering the soundness of these determinants to arrive at “just” compensation. APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEALS
14.Bearing in mind that the applicable standard is one of strict, and not absolute liability, I am of the considered view that the disputed questions of fact catalogued by my learned Brother at paragraphs 9 and 10 of his judgment are not disputes of an insubstantial or peripheral character. They go to the very root of the matter, in that their resolution would determine whether one or more of the recognised exceptions to strict liability stand attracted on the facts of each case.
15.In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24849 of 2025, the deceased, husband of Respondent No. 1, came into contact with an 11 KV line while working in a coffee plantation, in the course of which he was using an aluminium ladder, a material well known to be an efficient conductor of electricity. On a prima facie view of the record, it does appear that the deceased may himself have been negligent in bringing such an implement into proximity with a live high-tension line, raising a real and substantial question of contributory negligence on his part, which would fall within the “default of the plaintiff” exception recognised in Kaushnuma Begum (supra). Equally, the record raises questions as to whether the owner of the coffee plantation, in providing an aluminium ladder for use in proximity to the line, was himself negligent, and whether the appellant’s backup relays were in satisfactory working condition, as disputed with reference to the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer. These are not questions that can be resolved on the affidavits presently on record; they require an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, precisely the kind of exercise that a writ court is generally not supposed to undertake.
16.In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 24854 of 2025, the position is more nuanced still. The appellant-Corporation, being engaged in the inherently hazardous activity of transmitting high-tension electricity over a 66 KV line, owes a strict and ordinarily non-delegable duty to maintain its lines safely, and cannot, as a rule, escape liability merely by asserting that it exercised reasonable care in the discharge of that duty, that, after all, is the very premise of strict liability, as explained by this Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumari (2002) 2 SCC 162, and there is ordinarily no exception available to it in the normal discharge of its duties. However, the claimant in this appeal came into contact with the line while climbing onto the roof of a neighbouring building to retrieve a cricket ball, an act entirely his own, and this raises the question whether such conduct amounts to a default on the part of the victim of a kind that would attenuate or displace the appellant’s strict liability, or whether the appellant would nonetheless remain strictly liable notwithstanding such conduct on the victim’s part.
17.That question is compounded further by the disputed fact, extracted by my learned Brother at paragraph 10 of his judgment, as to whether the statutorily mandated minimum clearance of 4 metres between the transmission line and the building was, in fact, maintained. What is noticeable is that it has been alleged that the owner of the building did not maintain this minimum distance. If the building owner failed to maintain the statutory clearance, and it was that very default which brought the line within the respondent’s reach, a serious question arises as to whether, and to what extent, strict liability can still be invoked against the appellant-Corporation, or whether the proximate default lies at the door of the building owner, a question connected also with whether the undertaking dated 19th April 2000 referred to in the record binds the building owner and shifts responsibility away from the appellant. This, too, is a question of fact which goes to the root of the matter and requires to be examined with proper evidence; it cannot be resolved on the material presently available. I would only add that had there been no dispute as to the maintenance of the 4-metre gap between the line and the building, and the accident had nevertheless occurred, the principle of strict liability could, in all likelihood, have been readily invoked against the appellant. It is the very existence of this dispute that, in my view, takes the matter outside the ambit of the writ court.
18.In view of the foregoing, I am in respectful agreement with my esteemed Brother that the writ petitions, out of which these appeals arise, were not maintainable as genuine and substantial disputed questions of fact have involved in each of them, questions that bear directly upon the applicability of the recognised exceptions to strict liability, and which can properly be determined only upon evidence led before a forum equipped to receive and appreciate it. I accordingly concur that the impugned judgments of the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court be set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to pursue such remedies as may be available to them in law before the appropriate forum, to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment. I am also in agreement with the directions of my learned Brother regarding the interim compensation already paid, namely, that the same shall not be recovered from the respondents and shall not influence the quantum of compensation, if any, that may ultimately be awarded in the appropriate proceedings. A CONCLUDING WORD ON THE WIDTH OF ARTICLE 226
19.Before parting, I consider it appropriate to add that the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies, and the self-imposed restraint against entertaining disputed questions of fact in writ proceedings, must never be mistaken for a curtailment of the width of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution. As is often said, ubi jus ibi remedium, i.e., for every legal right, the law provides a remedy. Ordinarily, every legal wrong finds redress through the mechanism of an ordinary civil or statutory remedy; yet the writ jurisdiction has been specially crafted by the Constitution-makers to secure speedy and effective relief to the citizen, particularly, though by no means exclusively, where a violation of fundamental rights is alleged. The language of Article 226 is wide and unfettered, subject to no express limitation beyond the self-imposed judicial restraint that this Court and the High Courts have, through a long line of precedent, chosen to observe in the interests of institutional discipline and the orderly administration of justice.
20.With these supplementary observations, I respectfully concur with the reasoning, the conclusions, and the judgment by my learned Brother, Sanjay Karol, J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 12, 2026.