Telangana’s proposed Rythu Discom has come under political opposition, with senior BRS leader T Harish Rao urging the state government to withdraw the order and provide a written assurance that 24-hour free electricity for farmers will continue without any reduction.
Harish questioned how the new organisation would improve agricultural power supply when farmers were already facing power cuts and burnt transformers. He said the Congress government had not addressed concerns raised by the BRS, other political parties, electricity employees’ unions, power-sector experts, social activists and farmers before issuing the order.
The proposed arrangement is outlined in Government Order 17. According to figures cited by Harish from the order, around 30.63 lakh connections are proposed to be transferred to the new discom. These include 30,60,861 agricultural connections, 512 lift-irrigation schemes and connections associated with the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Mission Bhagiratha.
Harish also questioned whether the proposed discom would have sufficient power and staff to manage the network. He alleged that the government had allocated only 25% of the thermal power to the organisation, which he said would be inadequate for agricultural needs and the operation of lift-irrigation schemes.
The BRS leader said the new arrangement would have to maintain 6,15,651 agricultural transformers and 2.51 lakh circuit kilometres of agricultural low-tension power lines. He questioned how such a large network could be operated with around 2,000 employees and asked who would be responsible if inadequate staffing affected maintenance and caused further problems for farmers.
The dispute places the proposed discom within a wider administrative question: whether separating agricultural electricity connections into a dedicated organisation will improve accountability and service delivery, or create another layer of responsibility within an already stretched power system. Harish argued that the government should first resolve existing supply and maintenance problems before creating a new utility structure.
He also demanded clarity on the purpose of the proposed organisation and its expected benefit to farmers. His central concern was that the new arrangement could dilute the government’s commitment to providing free agricultural electricity unless the assurance was formally recorded.
The state government’s position on the objections and its response to the demand for withdrawal were not included in the report. The next point of significance is whether the government issues a written clarification on free power, staffing, power allocation and responsibility for maintaining the agricultural network covered by GO 17.
