Naila Irfan
Srinagar: In the political and administrative corridors of Jammu and Kashmir, a key question is echoing: Was Chief Minister Omar Abdullah unaware for nearly ten months that the Kashmir Power Distribution Corporation Limited (KPDCL) had filed a petition seeking a 20 percent surcharge on peak-hour electricity consumption? If he truly did not know, it raises a troubling question about how firmly he controls the Power Development Department (JKPDD), a portfolio he himself heads.
The Chief Minister stated today that he had already clarified in the Budget 2025–26 that there would be no increase in power tariff. The budget was presented on March 7, 2025. However, official records show that KPDCL filed its tariff petition on January 29, 2025—one month and eight days before the budget, and on the CM’s 103rd day as minister in charge of JKPDD. The allocation of portfolios took place on October 18, 2024. That means the petition was processed, vetted and filed directly under his administrative watch.
Even if KPDCL operates as an independent DISCOM under a Board of Directors, it does not function in a vacuum. Its administrative and policy oversight lies squarely with the Power Development Department, whose minister in charge is the Chief Minister. No DISCOM—whether KPDCL or JPDCL—can file a tariff petition without approval or concurrence from its Board of Directors. These boards are typically headed by the Administrative Secretary of JKPDD or an officer appointed by the government. All major policy decisions, including tariff proposals, are referred to the administrative department for guidance and clearance.
This sequence of events leads to a few uncomfortable but unavoidable questions.
If the Chief Minister was indeed aware of the petition, why was the public assured during the budget that tariffs would not rise? If he was unaware, does that imply that the DISCOMs and even his own department acted without his knowledge for more than three months after he took charge? And if senior officials processed such a significant policy proposal independently, what does that say about internal coordination and oversight within the department he leads?
The competing claims between the Chief Minister’s public assurances and the DISCOM’s officially filed petition have created a credibility gap—one that the government will have to address with clarity. For now, the episode exposes a disquieting disconnect between declared policy and administrative action, prompting deeper questions about governance, accountability and the chain of command within the power sector of Jammu and Kashmir.
