India’s SHANTI Nuclear Bill triggers fears of safety, liability dilution and executive overreach

India's journey towards energy security and sustainable development often involves navigating complex policy landscapes, and the proposed SHANTI Nuclear Bill is a prime example. This legislative initiative has ignited a critical debate about the future trajectory of India's nuclear energy program, particularly concerning the roles of private capital, executive discretion, public safety, and regulatory independence.

**India's Nuclear Journey: A Historical Overview**

India embarked on its ambitious nuclear energy program shortly after independence, driven by the vision of Homi J. Bhabha, often considered the father of the Indian nuclear program. The program's core objective was to achieve energy independence and harness atomic power for peaceful purposes, primarily electricity generation. This led to the establishment of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) in 1954 and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, which vests exclusive control over nuclear energy with the central government. India adopted a unique three-stage nuclear power program, designed to utilize its vast thorium reserves, due to limited uranium. Despite international sanctions following its 1974 and 1998 nuclear tests, India persevered, eventually securing a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in 2008, opening doors for international civil nuclear cooperation. However, the 2011 Fukushima disaster globally heightened concerns about nuclear safety and liability, prompting a re-evaluation of regulatory frameworks.

**The Existing Framework: CLNDA 2010 and its Challenges**

In the aftermath of the 2008 NSG waiver and the push for foreign nuclear reactor imports, India enacted the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) in 2010. This act was designed to provide a framework for compensating victims in the event of a nuclear incident and, crucially, to address the liability of suppliers. Section 17(b) of CLNDA 2010 allows the operator (primarily Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited – NPCIL) to have a right of recourse against the supplier for faulty equipment or services. This provision, unique globally, proved to be a significant hurdle for foreign nuclear suppliers, who were hesitant to invest due to concerns about unlimited liability. This impasse has slowed down the expansion of India's nuclear capacity, which is crucial for meeting its growing energy demands and climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement.

**The SHANTI Nuclear Bill: Unpacking the Debate**

The proposed SHANTI Nuclear Bill reportedly seeks to address these challenges by potentially recalibrating the balance between various stakeholders. The 'SHANTI' acronym itself, if it stands for 'Strengthening and Harmonising Atomic Nuclear Technology for India' or similar, suggests a focus on streamlining and accelerating nuclear expansion. The core concerns raised by critics center on whether the bill will dilute the stringent safety and liability standards established by CLNDA 2010. Specifically, fears include: **1) Dilution of Liability:** A potential weakening of supplier liability, making it harder for victims to claim compensation and reducing the incentive for suppliers to maintain the highest safety standards. **2) Executive Overreach:** A shift towards greater executive discretion in decision-making, potentially bypassing independent regulatory oversight and public scrutiny. **3) Private Capital Dominance:** A move to prioritize private investment in the nuclear sector, raising questions about whether profit motives might compromise safety protocols, traditionally a domain of strict government control. Proponents, however, argue that private capital is essential for scaling up nuclear capacity rapidly, reducing the financial burden on the state, and fostering technological innovation.

**Key Stakeholders and Their Interests**

* **Government (Department of Atomic Energy, Ministry of Power):** Seeks to accelerate nuclear power generation to meet India's energy security needs, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, achieve climate targets, and attract foreign/domestic investment. They might view the bill as a means to streamline project approvals and ease liability concerns. Atomic energy falls under Entry 6 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule) of the Constitution, granting the central government exclusive legislative competence.

* **Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL):** The sole public sector undertaking responsible for nuclear power generation. They would benefit from clearer liability frameworks and increased investment.

* **Private Sector Developers:** Eager to participate in India's growing energy market, but require predictable regulatory and liability frameworks to commit significant capital.

* **Civil Society and Environmental Groups:** Advocate for robust safety standards, stringent liability provisions, independent regulatory oversight, and public participation in decision-making, citing the potential catastrophic consequences of nuclear accidents.

* **International Nuclear Suppliers:** Primarily concerned with the liability regime, seeking parity with international norms that often cap or channel liability, making them hesitant under CLNDA 2010.

**Significance for India: Energy, Economy, and Governance**

The SHANTI Nuclear Bill holds immense significance for India. From an **energy perspective**, nuclear power is a critical component of India's strategy to diversify its energy mix, reduce carbon emissions, and achieve its target of 500 GW of non-fossil fuel electricity capacity by 2030. From an **economic standpoint**, attracting private and foreign investment can spur industrial growth, create jobs, and bring advanced technology. However, diluting liability could lead to significant **social and environmental costs** in the event of an accident, impacting public health and livelihoods, potentially undermining constitutional directives like Article 48A (Protection and Improvement of Environment and Safeguarding of Forests and Wild Life). From a **governance perspective**, the debate highlights the perennial tension between developmental imperatives and the need for robust regulatory frameworks, transparency, and accountability. The bill's provisions will test India's commitment to independent regulation, which is vital for maintaining public trust and ensuring long-term sustainability.

**Future Implications and Way Forward**

The outcome of the SHANTI Nuclear Bill will significantly shape the future of India's nuclear program. If passed in a form that addresses supplier concerns while maintaining robust safety and liability standards, it could unlock substantial investment, accelerate capacity addition, and enhance India's energy security. However, if perceived as compromising safety or undermining regulatory independence, it could face strong public opposition and potentially damage India's international standing as a responsible nuclear power. A balanced approach, possibly involving an insurance pool for suppliers, a clear cap on operator liability, and strengthened independent regulatory bodies, could provide a viable path forward. The challenge lies in crafting legislation that fosters growth without sacrificing the paramount importance of public safety and environmental protection, aligning with the principles enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the broader constitutional framework.