Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s defence of the 6.83 per cent electricity tariff hike may explain the government’s financial predicament, but it does little to answer the larger question: why should ordinary consumers bear the burden of inefficiency and unpaid government dues?
The Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission’s decision to raise tariffs from September 1 has understandably triggered public concern. The Chief Minister says the increase was a compulsion arising from mounting losses in the power sector and rising input costs. He has also pointed out that previous governments approved significantly higher tariff increases. But comparing today’s hike with those of the past cannot, by itself, make the present burden acceptable.
The real issue is not whether the increase is six, 10 or 15 per cent. The real issue is who is responsible for the losses and who ultimately pays for them.
The figures presented before the Legislative Assembly expose an uncomfortable contradiction. Jammu and Kashmir’s power distribution companies are struggling with thousands of crores in unpaid dues, even as consumers are being asked to accept higher tariffs in the name of financial sustainability. Total outstanding electricity dues were put at Rs 3,747.35 crore, including Rs 2,310.22 crore with KPDCL and Rs 1,437.13 crore with JPDCL.
What makes the situation more difficult to defend is that a substantial portion of these arrears is owed by government departments, public sector undertakings and security establishments. The Public Health Engineering Department alone reportedly owes around Rs 1,300 crore, while the Irrigation and Flood Control Department has dues exceeding Rs 580 crore. Security establishments, municipal bodies, the Home Department and even the Power Development Department itself are among those carrying substantial liabilities.
This raises a fundamental question: if the government is itself one of the biggest defaulters, why should the common consumer be made to pay more for the government’s financial indiscipline?
Tariff rationalisation may be unavoidable in the long run. Power generation, transmission and distribution involve enormous costs, and a financially distressed electricity sector cannot remain sustainable indefinitely. But tariff revision must go hand in hand with accountability, recovery and efficiency.
Before asking households to accept higher bills, the administration must demonstrate that every serious effort is being made to recover outstanding dues from institutional defaulters. There can be no credible argument for financial discipline if government departments continue accumulating unpaid bills while paying consumers are repeatedly told to tighten their belts.
The government also needs to distinguish between genuine inability to pay and habitual default. Welfare measures for the poorest households can and should continue, but subsidies must be targeted, transparent and fiscally sustainable. The previously announced provision of 200 units of free electricity to eligible Antyodaya households is a welfare intervention; it should not be used to obscure the larger structural weaknesses of the power sector.
The tariff hike, therefore, should not become merely another revenue-raising exercise. It should be accompanied by a clear roadmap for recovering arrears and reducing losses. Consumers can understand financial compulsion; what they cannot accept is being made to finance institutional inefficiency without accountability.
If the government wants people to share the burden of rescuing the power sector, it must first demonstrate that those who owe the system billions will also be made to pay.
