The federation said it has noted with grave concern that the government proposed Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2020 towards Privatization of the sector through You are allowed to do as much as is needed to end the perceived or actual threat to your rights. Not more, not less.
That means, at most, incapacitating the intruder. Once they are incapacitated, they no longer pose a threat. Your exact response will vary, according to what is actually going on:
If you are, for example, a trained martial artist, people will expect you to be able to pull your punches and assess what damage you do. Most martial arts do offer knockout blows, chokes, or “leg breakers” that will leave the adversary unable to fight. Once that person is down, call the cops.
If you are not trained in combat, you may prefer to be armed. Typically, the more potentially lethal the armament, the more restraint you need to exercise. So hitting someone with a 2 x 4 plank can be Ok… even hitting them on the head, in order to get a knockout blow. But keeping on hitting once the intruder is down is a no-go.
If you use potentially lethal weapons, such as firearms or knives, you will probably need to give some warning to the other guy that you are willing and able to get serious. As you are not obliged to put yourself in danger, this is balanced by who the other guy is: Some drunk teenager, or an armed and dangerous type? If they are armed, you can shoot first, because to give warning would mean to put yourself in jeopardy.
Whatever you do, your goal can only ever be to knock the fight out of the other guy. Get them down and call the cops. Anything else is no longer self-defense, but a crime in its own right.
So typically, the order of escalation would be
Try to scare off the intruder
If that doesn’t work, try to detain the intruder for long enough to have the cops handle it (like lock him/her in).
If that doesn’t work, try to incapacitate the intruder by whatever means are sure to result in the intruder no longer being a threat, while not putting yourself at undue risk. Again, what this means in detail depends on who you are and who the intruder is. If you’re 6′6″ and a martial artist, and the intruder is a drunk teenager, it will be viewed very differently from when you’re a slim, petite lady with no combat training whatsoever and the intruder is some kind of violent gang member. In one case, it might be perfectly reasonable to use a firearm, in the other, it probably wouldn’t. It is not possible to cover all options here, so use common sense.
That being said, it is also true that you need not suffer the intruder in your home. Which is why the usually easiest and best reaction to end the threat - running away - is not required by law.
Allowances are made for you being scared, and the law has mechanisms for dealing when the perceived threat is way above the actual threat (which is why pro burglars are almost never armed. Carrying a weapon not only increases the time they need to serve if caught, it also allows the other guy to shoot first, which would be a big mess).
Above all, your aim is never to kill, maim or injure. Your goal is to make the other guy stop the attack. The less force required for that, the better for everybody. transferring the asset created with public exchequer inclusive of natural resources to private houses.
The AIPEF has strongly opposed the approach of the government ventilated through the proposed "draconian anti-people electricity legislation with clear object of snatching away right of access to electricity from poor section of Indian people and peasants".
The federation said that it is evident that the bill is for ease of making business for the profit monger community and all aspects related to right to electricity for poor people has been set aside.