Solar firms move Karnataka HC over ‘unreasonable’ mandate for home cells

A group of solar manufacturers and developers has approached the Karnataka High Court to stay a rule that, starting June 1, requires most new solar projects to use only domestically made cells. They cite the difference between what Indian solar cell manufacturers charge and international prices.

The cells listed under the government-mandated ‘ALMM List-II’ are sold at around ₹13 per watt, against an imported price of about ₹5 per watt, the petitioners say. “₹5 and ₹13 are unreasonable. That is what we are asking (the court to look into),” Ramesh Shivanna of the Karnataka Renewable Energy System Manufacturers Association (KRESMA), which led the petition, told The Hindu .

ALMM is a government-ratified list of approved models and manufacturers and a list of domestic manufacturers whose solar panels and cells are mandatory for electricity distribution in India. ALMM-1 is a list of about 130 module manufacturers. ALMM-2 is a smaller group of about 17 companies that make solar cells for these modules.

The writ petition, filed on June 6 by solar industry associations from Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, challenges the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) orders enforcing ALMM List-II — an approved list of domestic solar cell manufacturers — for projects awarded on or after June 1, 2026. Other state associations have reportedly filed similar petitions in other courts. Proponents say they are not opposed to the list, but want its enforcement delayed for at least a year until home cells are available in reasonable quantity and quality and at a competitive price.

The petitioners also point out that the Ministry of Finance classified the West Asian conflict as a force majeure event, under which the MNRE granted contract extensions to the solar cell manufacturers; the same consideration, they say, should apply to developers.

Mr. Shivanna said the government needs to step in on pricing until the domestic supply matures. “The government should regulate the price,” he said. “When something is available so cheap in the global market and you are forced to pay (much more) here, it is the government’s responsibility to look into what is happening globally and in India.” He claimed that a handful of cell manufacturers made a profit: he estimated that at 30 GW annual capacity and a mark-up of around ₹8 per watt, roughly ₹24,000 crore per year would flow to “four to five manufacturers”, some of whom also received production incentives.

According to the MNRE database, only six of the seventeen ALMM-2 companies have “high efficiency” solar cells — Emmvee, Premier Energies Photovoltaic, Mundra Solar PV, Tata Power Renewable Energy (small 247 MW line), Waaree and Renewsys, Reliance and Jupiter Solartech.

The dispute exposes a structural gap at the heart of India’s solar expansion. Installed solar capacity has exceeded 144 GW and is growing at about 40% annually, and module assembly capacity has reached roughly 210 GW. However, production of upstream cells – the step targeted by the new rule – was only about 27 GW at the end of 2025, according to Mercom India, a clean energy research group. Ratings agency CareEdge estimates that domestic cells meet only 25-30% of demand, leaving India dependent on imports, especially from China. “Right now the entire capacity (of high efficiency cells) made in India is not enough for our requirements,” Mr Shivanna said. “When we ask for a supply of cells, (many) don’t have stock.” All cell companies make modules, but many module makers don’t make cells, so about 14 companies account for 98% of India’s solar capacity addition.

Rejecting a blanket extension, MNRE said in a May 25 order that industry consensus favors “policy stability” to protect investor confidence in domestic manufacturing and instead offers case-by-case relief for projects that are substantially built. On Monday (June 8, 2026), the ministry established a four-member expert committee that will review applications for extension of the deadline.

Nearly 40-50 non-cell developers, Mr. Shivanna said, proposed projects around TOPCon, but much of the domestic capacity listed is older Mono-PERC, which provides less energy per panel and requires more land, mounting structures and cabling for the same output. Of the roughly 30 GW of listed cell capacity, only 8-10 GW is TOPCon and is below capacity, Mr. Shivanna said: “Our country is only capable of producing 10 GW TOPCon annually; the rest is Mono-PERC.” When he was pushed back into the older cell, he said, it was “like asking someone to use (the Ambassador) which gives 4km per liter when every vehicle today gives 25.

Authorities in Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu joined their call for cost sharing, Mr. Shivanna said: “When I initiated (the case) in Karnataka, these associations called and said they will join because the expenses are very high.” Other states moved separately, he added: “Rajasthan applied independently, Gujarat applied.” Similar petitions are pending in the Delhi and Rajasthan high courts.

Published – 08 Jun 2026 22:18 IST