A group of solar manufacturers and developers has approached the Karnataka High Court to defer a rule that, from June 1, requires most new solar projects to use only domestically made cells. They cite the gap between what Indian solar-cell makers charge and international prices.
Cells listed under the government’s mandatory “ALMM List-II” sell at around ₹13 a watt, against an imported price of about ₹5 a watt, the petitioners say. “₹5 and ₹13 is unreasonable. That is what we are asking [the court to address],” Ramesh Shivanna of the Karnataka Renewable Energy Systems Manufacturers Association (KRESMA), which led the petition, told The Hindu.
ALMM is the government ratified Approved List of Models and Manufacturers and a list of domestic producer companies whose solar panels and constituent 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 makes the solar cells for these modules.
The writ petition, filed on June 6 by solar industry associations from Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, challenges Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) orders that enforce ALMM List-II — the approved list of domestic solar-cell manufacturers — for projects commissioned on or after June 1, 2026. Reportedly other state associations too have filed similar petitions in other courts. The petitioners say they do not oppose the list, but want its enforcement deferred, at least a year, until domestic cells are available in adequate quantity and quality, and at a competitive price.
The petitioners also point to the Finance Ministry’s classification of the West Asia conflict as a force majeure event, under which the MNRE allowed extensions of contractual deadlines to solar-cell makers; the same consideration, they say, should apply to developers.
Mr. Shivanna said the government must step in on price until domestic supply matures. “The government should regulate the price,” he said. “When something is available so cheap in the global market and here you are being made to pay [much more], it is the government’s responsibility to study what is happening globally and in India.” A handful of cell makers, he argued, were capturing the gain: by his estimate, at a 30 GW annual build and a roughly ₹8-a-watt premium, about ₹24,000 crore a year would flow to “four-five manufacturers,” several of whom had also received production-linked incentives.
According to an MNRE database, only six of the seventeen ALMM-2 companies carry “high-efficiency” solar cells cells — Emmvee, Premier Energies Photovoltaic, Mundra Solar PV, Tata Power Renewable Energy (a 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 crossed 144 GW and is growing about 40% a year, and module-assembly capacity has reached roughly 210 GW. But upstream cell manufacturing — the step the new rule targets — stood at only about 27 GW at the end of 2025, according to Mercom India, a clean-energy research group. The ratings agency CareEdge estimates domestic cells meet just 25–30% of demand, leaving India reliant on imports, mainly from China. “Right now the whole capacity (of high efficiency cells) manufactured in India is not enough for our requirement,” Mr. Shivanna said. “When we ask for cell supply, [many] don’t have stock.” All companies that make cells make modules but many modules makers don’t make cells whereby about 14 companies make up 98% of India’s solar capacity addition.
MNRE has refused a blanket extension, saying in a May 25 order that industry consensus favoured “policy stability” to protect investor confidence in domestic manufacturing, and offering instead case-by-case relief for projects that are substantially built. On Monday (June 8, 2026), the Ministry constituted a four-member Expert Committee, to vet applications for time-extension.
Nearly 40-50 developers, who are not cell manufacturers, Mr. Shivanna said, have designed projects around TOPCon, however much of the listed domestic capacity is older Mono-PERC, which yields less power per panel and forces 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 it is running below capacity, Mr. Shivanna said: “Annually, our country is able to do only 10 GW of TOPCon; the rest is Mono-PERC.” Being pushed back to the older cell, he said, was “like asking someone to use an [Ambassador] giving 4 km a litre when every vehicle today gives 25.”
The Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu bodies combined their challenge to share costs, Mr. Shivanna said: “When I initiated [the case] in Karnataka, these associations called and said they will join, because the expenditure is very high.” Other States were moving separately, he added: “Rajasthan independently filed; Gujarat has filed.” Similar petitions are pending in the Delhi and Rajasthan High Courts.
Published – June 08, 2026 10:18 pm IST
#Solar #firms #move #Karnataka #unreasonable #domesticcell #mandate