No national law in India requires your housing society to let you install an electric vehicle charger. Four documents are cited as though one did: a model building bye-law amendment, a Bombay High Court judgment, a Maharashtra seven-day no-objection circular, and a Karnataka electricity regulator's order. Read against their primary sources, one is a model states are asked to adopt, one tells a state to finish drafting rules, one we could not locate, and one binds electricity licensees in one state, not your society. None of this is legal advice.
The four documents, side by side
| Document | Status, last verified 2 October 2026 |
|---|---|
| Model Building Bye-Laws clause 10.4, February 2019: an amendment to a model, not a notification | Model only; adoption is state by state, we verified none, and the documents disagree on what 20% would require |
| Bombay High Court judgment, 14 January 2025: a four-clause order directing administrative action | Disposed of; it decided no prayer, the conditions are still draft |
| The "seven-day no-objection" rule: not located; the nearest document is a letter of 14 July 2022 from the Additional Registrar (Housing), Co-operative Societies, to one officer | Unsourced; treat the figure as unverified |
| Karnataka regulator's order, 30 July 2024, under the Electricity Act, 2003 | No sunset clause; load enhancement needs licensee approval |
Karnataka: the firmest of the four
The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission's order "Streamlining of Procedure for installation of EV (Electric Vehicle) Charging Units", 30 July 2024, is made under "Section 86(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Distribution Licensees in the State of Karnataka", and is addressed to the state's distribution licensees, which it does not name. We could not find it on the Commission's own site, so we cite the five-page signed copy we read, published by HESCOM, a Government of Karnataka licensee: hescom.karnataka.gov.in; last verified 2 October 2026. It has no sunset clause and nothing we found supersedes it, but not having located it in the Commission's own publication list, we cannot confirm from KERC's records whether it has been amended. Check with your DISCOM first.
Its clause on flats lets owners "who are allocated a specific parking space in Multi-storeyed buildings/Complexes" connect charging points within their existing sanctioned load, or "enhance the load as per the requirement with the approval of the Distribution licensee". The same clause requires the cabling from the metering panel to comply with "the CEA safety standards/Regulations". Two limits travel with it:
- it is addressed to the licensees, and where it speaks to associations it tells them to get the licensee's sanction; it never mentions association consent, an NOC or bye-laws, and does not decide whether a society may refuse;
- it reaches only residents with an allocated space, and cabling leaves common property (no allotted slot, sanctioned load).
What the Bombay High Court actually ordered
In Amit Dholakia v. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2024 (OS), neutral citation 2025:BHC-OS:1513-DB, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court gave an oral judgment on 14 January 2025. The whole operative order is four clauses. Clause (i) directs the authorities "to finalize the draft conditions/rules for installation of charging stations to be installed in cooperative societies ... expeditiously and on priority". Clause (ii) requires those rules to be circulated. Clause (iii) says respondent no. 3 "may consider" directing societies under the MCS Act to amend their bye-laws accordingly. Clause (iv) disposes of the petition.
So the only clause touching society bye-laws is permissive. The Court recorded that Article 226 "does not permit us to enter into the legislative domain of policymaking", and treated the framework as still to come, saying societies would be "better equipped to grant permission" once such a mechanism was in place.
None of the petitioner's six prayers was granted — and none was refused either. The order makes no finding on any of them, and the society's refusal of 18 May 2022 was neither set aside nor held unlawful. The only refusal this judgment records is the society's own.
The official copy went up on the Court's own site on 31 January 2025; that server did not respond to us on 2 October 2026, so we cite what we read, the reproduction at indiankanoon.org, carrying the document's own footers ("::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2025 :::"); last verified 2 October 2026. It is an Article 226 writ petition, decided on the powers the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 gives the state authorities. It has no operation outside Maharashtra, and none over an association under another state's statute.
The seven-day no-objection rule: we could not find it
The claim is that a Maharashtra circular dated 21 November 2022 obliges a society to issue a no-objection certificate within seven days, and that silence past day seven is consent. We could not locate any primary government document imposing a seven-day deadline on a society to issue an EV charger no-objection certificate. We are not saying none was issued; we could not find it, and none of the primary documents we read imposes one. The January 2025 judgment never uses the word "seven". Seven-day periods do exist here, which is part of why the claim travels: the draft bye-laws below give a society's secretary seven days to scrutinise an application and seven to communicate a decision. Neither is a deadline to say yes.
The stronger point is what the State itself filed: an inter-office communication from the Additional Registrar (Housing), Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, Outward No. Housing/D-3/Housing Society/EV Charger/14-C.C., dated 14 July 2022, whose only addressee is one departmental officer, the Divisional Joint Registrar in Mumbai, not any society, and which imposes no duty to grant and no deadline. The State relied on no circular of November 2022, and the judgment reproducing its material never mentions one.
The thirteen conditions headed "Draft Conditions" are a separate document, not an annexure to that letter: the judgment records that they "are a part of the said affidavit in reply", the State's affidavit of 13 January 2025, filed by a Deputy Registrar the day before the hearing. They say a certificate "should be granted" subject to conditions — should, in a draft, with no timeline, and these are the conditions the Court ordered finalised.
Maharashtra's draft revised model bye-laws would go further, requiring the certificate "within the period prescribed by the Government" — but no period has been prescribed, the draft carries no date in its text, it is not gazetted, and the department's page still links it for objections, so we do not repeat press reports that its comment window closed on 27 August 2026 (sahakarayukta.maharashtra.gov.in; last verified 2 October 2026).
The model building bye-law is a model
In February 2019 the Town and Country Planning Organisation, under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, added clause 10.4 to the Model Building Bye-Laws, 2016. The Press Information Bureau announced it on 15 February 2019 as "Model Building Byelaws 2016 & Urban Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation Guidelines 2014 Amended for Establishing EV Charging Infrastructure", Release ID 1564744 (pib.gov.in; last verified 2 October 2026). The attachment host that release linked to, pibphoto.nic.in, no longer resolves, but the Bureau's own archive still serves the amendment (archive.pib.gov.in; last verified 2 October 2026), all quotations here come from it.
Clause 10.4 states that "charging infrastructures shall be provided only for EVs, which is currently assumed to be 20% of all 'vehicle holding capacity'/'parking capacity' at the premise". What that would require where a state adopted it is not settled even between the government's own documents: the note under the clause's own table, the companion URDPFI amendment and NITI Aayog's handbook each state the figure differently, and only your state's adopted text decides which.
On its own the clause requires nothing. In a written Lok Sabha reply of 14 December 2023, "Promoting Safe Building Practices in Urban Areas", Release ID 1986245 (pib.gov.in; last verified 2 October 2026), the Ministry confirmed that "The monitoring, notification of Building Bye Laws and its enforcement is the responsibility of the States/ ULBs." We verified adoption for no state, so we name none. Bye-laws bite at the building-permit stage, so they reach new construction — a feature of how bye-laws work, not anything the amendment says, whose text never mentions new or existing buildings. NITI Aayog's handbook says the same: byelaws "are applicable only to new buildings".
What you can actually do
None of this tells you whether your society must say yes. The route that exists is procedural, not legal: put the request in writing, with the space, charger, load, cable route and who pays; ask for a written reply with reasons (common objections); then take it to the general body meeting (the AGM) and ask for a written policy. Spare capacity, earthing and load enhancement are for a licensed electrician who has inspected your building (site assessment).
Common questions
Can my society legally refuse permission for an EV charger?
Nobody can tell you with confidence. What governs it is your state's society or apartment ownership law and your society's registered bye-laws, and a refusal you think unreasonable is for your advocate.
Is there a national rule that 20% of apartment parking must have chargers?
No, and the documents do not even agree on what it would require where a state has adopted it. Clause 10.4 puts the figure as the share of a premises' parking "currently assumed to be" electric, and the charger counts in its tables are ratios applied to a share. A note under its own table instead reads "Charging bays shall be planned currently at 20% capacity of all vehicles", and NITI Aayog's handbook summarises the amendments as asking for charging infrastructure at 20% of parking spaces in new buildings. It is a model: it reaches your building only where your state or urban local body has adopted it, on that authority's own terms, and we verified adoption for no state.
Did the Bombay High Court order societies to allow chargers?
No. It directed state authorities to finalise and circulate draft conditions, and recorded that Article 226 does not let it enter the legislative domain of policymaking. It granted none of the prayers for permission, and decided none of them either, making no finding on the refusal the petitioner received.
Is there really a seven-day deadline for a society to issue an NOC?
We could not find a primary document imposing one on a society. Until then, do not put a seven-day deadline in a letter to your committee, and do not treat silence as consent.