About the APTEL Scorecard

TrustBridge’s Regulatory Database (the “Database”) is a repository of publicly available orders passed by several regulators, appellate fora, and courts. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”) is one such forum. This scorecard tracks Electricity Regulatory Commission (“ERC”) orders appealed before APTEL. It is intended to provide a transparent, empirical foundation for cross-ERC comparisons in adjudicatory functions.

Scope

• Metrics: Currently, this scorecard measures appellate performance through disposition outcomes. It tracks whether appeals were allowed, dismissed, partially allowed, or otherwise disposed of. It also tracks whether the matter was remanded.¹

  Tag	Description
  Allowed	The appeal succeeds and the order under challenge is set aside, reversed or modified.
  Dismissed	The appeal fails and the order stands.
  Partially allowed	The appeal succeeds in part, with the order upheld in some respects and set aside or modified in others.
  Otherwise disposed of	The proceeding is closed with directions or observations, without a formal allow / dismiss finding.
  Remanded	The matter is sent back to the original authority for fresh consideration. This is recorded in addition to the disposition metrics.

• Scope: The scorecard currently comprises orders originating from the Central (“CERC”) and Maharashtra (“MERC”) ERCs. As we develop the scorecard, we will expand our scope to other ERCs and eventually, other regulators as well.
• Frequency: The scorecard will be updated every quarter. The scorecard is currently based on orders passed in the first two quarters of FY26-27. Each subsequent edition will add onto the existing scorecard.

Data collection

• Data was extracted from the Database using the following full-text Boolean keyword searches, filtered for "APTEL" by forum and a date range of 1 April 2026 to 30 September 2026:
  • MERC: “merc | maharashtra electricity regulatory commission”, yielding 42 results.
  • CERC: “cerc | central electricity regulatory commission”, yielding 71 results.
• Results were exported as CSV files and uploaded to Google Sheets for simultaneous coding by four researchers.²
• Each row initially represented a single order document. Each order was scrutinised for relevance based on order type. As only final orders have a disposition, we excluded interim orders and review petitions. Order type was identified based on Appeal No. (e.g., IAs and RPs) and a reading of the operative portion of the order.
• Where a single final order document addressed multiple clubbed appeals, researchers added rows to ensure each unique Appeal No. had its own distinct entry, retaining all original metadata (Doc No., Title, Date, URL).
• For the final orders identified in the dataset, disposition was recorded based on explicit mentions of the various disposition tags: allowed, dismissed, partially allowed, otherwise disposed of. We also recorded whether the matter had been remanded or the impugned order quashed or set aside based on explicit mentions in the judgment.
• Where no such explicit mention was available, disposition, remand status and order outcome was inferred by two researchers separately and then verified for agreement.
• Similarly, where the operative portion is unclear on the disposition, findings were cross-verified by two researchers (e.g., where an appeal is said to have been “disposed of” but it seems apparent from the rest of the text that the appeal was allowed, partially allowed or dismissed).

Limitations

• Disposition in appeal at the tribunal is an incomplete metric of appellate performance. The outcome of appeals may not necessarily reflect the quality of the original order. In subsequent editions, adding other metrics such as issue categories and frequency might provide a more representative picture.
• Cases are selected by APTEL decision date, so the impugned ERC orders may date from several years earlier and from different commission compositions.
• APTEL orders can be appealed to the Supreme Court which might change the overall disposition in the matter. However, SC judgments are not included in this analysis.