MNRE Clarifies Applicability of ALMM List-II for Solar PV Cells
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Office Memorandum dated August 4, 2026
The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (“MNRE”) issued an Office Memorandum dated August 4, 2026, clarifying the applicability of the Approved List of Models and Manufacturers (“ALMM”) List-II requirement for solar photovoltaic (“PV”) cells, following its earlier notification of July 18, 2026 and multiple representations received from stakeholders seeking clarity on transitional cases.
Background
The ALMM framework requires solar PV modules and, where applicable, solar PV cells used in specified categories of projects to comply with the relevant approved lists maintained by MNRE. A July 28, 2025 memorandum had amended the framework governing the applicability of the List-II cell-sourcing requirement for competitively bid projects, leaving questions on how the change applied to bids falling within the transitional period.
What the clarification provided
For competitively bid projects, MNRE clarified that where the bid was live as on July 28, 2025, projects for which the last date of bid submission was on or before August 31, 2025 remained exempt from the List-II cell requirement. Bids for which the last date of bid submission fell between December 9, 2024 and July 28, 2025 continued to be governed by the ALMM conditions specified in the original tender documents where those conditions specifically required the use of ALMM List-II solar PV cells. Accordingly, the July 28, 2025 memorandum did not automatically override or relax such pre-existing tender conditions.
Separately, net-metering and open-access renewable energy projects commissioned on or before December 31, 2026 were exempted from the ALMM List-II cell-sourcing requirement, irrespective of when the project was initiated. The exemption applied without requiring an application on the NISE Solar DCR Portal. ALMM List-I compliance for solar PV modules remained unaffected by this exemption.
Why it mattered
The clarification resolved a compliance ambiguity for developers and EPC contractors dealing with competitively bid projects falling within the transitional period, and provided a defined exemption window for eligible net-metering and open-access projects that might otherwise have faced difficulties in sourcing List-II compliant cells.
Source: Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Office Memorandum, “ALMM List-II for solar PV cells: Clarification reg.” dated August 4, 2026.
Supreme Court Holds Possession of UPSI Coupled with Trading Presumes Insider Trading
Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth, 2026 INSC 826, August 11, 2026
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside a Securities Appellate Tribunal (“SAT”) order and restored the Securities and Exchange Board of India's (“SEBI”) finding of insider trading against the Chairman and promoters of Tara Jewels Limited. The Supreme Court, however, reduced the penalty imposed on Respondent No. 1 under Section 15G of the SEBI Act from ₹25 lakh to ₹10 lakh.
Background
SEBI had found that the respondents traded in the securities of Tara Jewels Limited while in possession of Unpublished Price-Sensitive Information (“UPSI”), in contravention of Regulation 4(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (“PIT Regulations”). The SAT had set aside SEBI's finding, holding, inter alia, that the respondents' explanation regarding the use of the sale proceeds and the circumstances surrounding the trades was sufficient to establish their innocence. This prompted SEBI's appeal to the Supreme Court.
What the Court held
The Court held that Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations incorporates a rebuttable presum-ption that trades undertaken by a person in possession of UPSI were motivated by the UPSI in that person's possession. Once possession of UPSI and trading while in possession of such information were established, the reasons for undertaking the trades and the purposes for which the proceeds were used were not relevant to determining whether the prohibition had been violated, subject to the defences available under Regulation 4(1). The Court therefore held that the respondents' lack of profit, or the use of the proceeds for other purposes, did not alter the conclusion of insider trading in the circumstances of the case.
The Court distinguished its decision in SEBI v. Abhijit Rajan, (2024) 11 SCC 645, noting that the transactions in that case had taken place in 2013 and were governed by the erstwhile 1992 PIT Regulations. Unlike the 1992 Regulations, the 2015 PIT Regulations contain a specific note to Regulation 4(1) stating that the reasons for trading and the purposes for which the proceeds are applied are not relevant for determining whether the regulation has been violated.
Why it mattered
The ruling strengthened the operation of the statutory presumption under Regulation 4(1) of the 2015 PIT Regulations once possession of UPSI and contemporaneous trading are established. It narrowed the scope for respond-ents to resist a finding of contravention by relying solely on the absence of profit motive or the manner in which the trading proceeds were subsequently used, while preserving the specific defences contemplated under Regulation 4(1).
Source: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajeev Vasant Sheth & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4905 of 2022, 2026 INSC 826, decided on August 11, 2026.
Supreme Court Holds Electricity Utilities Liable Under Strict, Not Absolute, Liability for Electrocution Claims
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha & Ors., 2026 INSC 847, August 12-13, 2026
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside orders of the Karnataka High Court, both at the Single Judge and Division Bench stages, which had imposed absolute liability on the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited in respect of two electrocution incidents.
What the Court held
The Court held that electricity transmission attracts strict liability, not absolute liability, meaning the recognised exceptions to strict liability, including the claimant's own default, act of a stranger, statutory authority, act of God, consent, common benefit, and remoteness of consequences, remain available as defences to a utility, relying on Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9. The Court further held that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable for compensation claims involving disputed questions of fact, and that the multiplier method used under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be mechanically applied to electrocution compensation claims, relying on Raman v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 15 SCC 1.
What happens to compensation already paid
The Court directed that interim compensation already paid to the claimants was not to be recovered, notwithstanding the setting aside of the absolute liability finding.
Why it matters
The ruling restores the availability of recognised defences to electricity utilities facing electro-cution compensation claims, and cautions against the use of writ jurisdiction, as opposed to a suit, to adjudicate compensation claims that turn on disputed facts.
A verification note, in keeping with this newsletter's sourcing standards: The neutral citation 2026 INSC 847 and the coram are reported consistently across sources reviewed; readers relying on this citation for a filing or footnote should verify it directly against the Supreme Court's official website before use.
Source: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha & Ors., 2026 INSC 847, decided August 12-13, 2026.
SEBI Proposes Overhaul of Settlement Mechanism Through Draft Settlement Regulations, 2026
Securities and Exchange Board of India, Consultation Paper on the Draft SEBI (Settlement of
Proceedings) Regulations, 2026, August 14, 2026
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) released a consultation paper proposing the draft SEBI (Settlement of Proceedings) Regulations, 2026 (“Draft Regulations”), intended to replace the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 (“2018 Regulations”).
Background
SEBI's settlement mechanism traces its origins to a circular dated April 20, 2007, and was subsequently placed on a dedicated regulatory footing through regulations issued in 2014 and then 2018. SEBI's consultation paper recorded that settlement collections fell to ₹109.8 crore in FY26 from ₹798.9 crore in FY25, with settlement applications declining from 703 to 439 over the same period. SEBI also found, based on a study of settlement applications filed over the preceding two years, excluding outliers, that settlement amounts proposed in cases where settlement was not ultimately reached and which subsequently resulted in adjudicated penalties averaged roughly eight times the penalty finally imposed.
Key proposed changes
The Draft Regulations proposed a revised settlement-amount formula linked to the minimum statutory penalty, the stage of proceedings, prior regulatory action, the category and gravity of the violation, and aggravating and mitigating factors, with SEBI estimating that the revised methodology could reduce the current eight-times differential to approximately four times. The proposed framework also contemplated separate treatment of unlawful gains and investor losses, with such amounts to be addressed through appropriate restitution, disgorgement or other settlement terms rather than forming part of the core settlement calculation.
The Draft Regulations further proposed allowing settlement applications to be made or re-filed at later stages of proceedings, including in matters pending before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (“SAT”) and the Supreme Court, subject to an additional settlement amount in specified circumstances. The proposed framework also introduced a fast-track settlement route for specified violations and matters involving settlement amounts of up to ₹10 lakh, while reducing the additional charges applicable to certain re-filed settlement applications.
Comment window: Comments on the consult-ation paper and the Draft Regulations were invited until September 4, 2026.
Why it mattered
If notified, the revised framework would materially change how settlement amounts are calculated and would provide greater flexibility for settlement at later stages of enforcement proceedings, including in matters already before SAT or the Supreme Court. The proposed changes would also introduce a more streamlined route for specified smaller matters, representing a significant proposed departure from the narrower settlement framework presently available under the 2018 Regulations.
Source: Securities and Exchange Board of India, Consultation Paper on Review of the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018 and the Draft SEBI (Settlement of Proceedings) Regulations, 2026, dated August 14, 2026.
CEA Releases Draft Technical Standards for Connectivity to the Grid Regulations, 2026
Central Electricity Authority, Draft Regulations under Section 177 of the Electricity Act, 2003, dated July 31, 2026
The Central Electricity Authority (“CEA”) issued the draft Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Connectivity to the Grid) Regulations, 2026 (“Draft Regulations”), proposing to replace the existing Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Connectivity to the Grid) Regulations, 2007 and subsequent amendments. The Draft Regulations were issued under Section 177(2)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers the CEA to prescribe technical standards for connectivity to the grid. The CEA subsequently invited public comments on the Draft Regulations on August 4, 2026.
Background
The 2007 Regulations were framed at a time when India's grid was dominated by conventional synchronous generation. Since then, the grid has absorbed large volumes of renewable, hybrid and storage-based capacity, prompting the CEA to undertake a comprehensive revision of the technical standards governing connectivity. The Draft Regulations sought to establish a technology-neutral framework reflecting the increasing integration of renewable energy, battery energy storage systems and other advanced grid technologies.
Key proposed changes
The Draft Regulations significantly expanded the scope to cover synchronous and asynchronous generating stations, hybrid generating stations, Battery Energy Storage Systems (“BESS”), including pumped storage, HVDC systems and FACTS devices, and applied to entities connecting to the grid at 33 kV and above. The Draft Regulations proposed Low Voltage Ride-Through and High Voltage Ride-Through capabilities, power plant controllers for active and reactive power control, and additional technical requirements for BESS. In particular, BESS of 50 MW and above were proposed to have Automatic Generation Control, grid-forming inverter capability and black-start capability, in addition to other specified capabilities relating to active and reactive power control, voltage control, frequency response, fault and frequency ride-through, communication and control, ramp-rate control and night-mode operation.
The Draft Regulations also proposed that no generating unit or generating station would be granted connectivity with the grid without a Unique Registration Number generated through registration on CEA's e-GEN portal. The CEA would be empowered to investigate cases of non-compliance and direct the appropriate transmission utility to disconnect a user from the grid until compliance was achieved, with non-compliance also attracting action under Section 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Comment window:The CEA invited stakeholders and members of the public to submit comments and suggestions on the Draft Regulations. The comment period closed on September 2, 2026.
Why it mattered
The Draft Regulations, if notified, would materially raise the technical compliance requirements for renewable energy and battery storage developers seeking grid connectivity, and would formalise requirements relating to grid-forming capability and black-start support for larger BESS projects. The proposed framework also sought to bring emerging technologies, including hybrid plants, BESS, HVDC systems and FACTS devices, within a common set of technical connectivity standards.
Source: Central Electricity Authority, Draft Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Connectivity to the Grid) Regulations, 2026, dated July 31, 2026; CEA's invitation for public comments dated August 4, 2026.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
