Balancing Nuclear Growth and Liability Concerns

Why in the News ?

The Supreme Court is hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the SHANTI Act, 2025, which allows private and foreign participation in nuclear power and caps operator liability, raising concerns over victim compensation, supplier accountability, and compliance with environmental clearances.

Constitutional Concerns over Liability Provisions:

• A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that a balance must be maintained between “visible national interest” and potential “hypothetical losses” while examining the petition through the lens of environmental jurisprudence.

• The petition, filed by former IAS officer E.A.S. Sarma, questions the legality of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, particularly regarding ex post facto regulatory compliance.

• Senior advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi argued that the Act places an “absurdly low” liability cap of ₹3,000 crore on plant operators, undermining the polluter pays principle.

• The government’s residual liability is limited to 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), allegedly insufficient compared to damages from disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, raising questions about retrospective environmental clearances.

• The exemption granted to suppliers from liability may encourage compromises in safety standards and adherence to the precautionary principle, as manufacturers could prioritise profits over risk mitigation and proper environmental impact assessment.

• The Court indicated it would examine whether the Act suffers from manifest arbitrariness or violates constitutional principles of justice and equality, drawing parallels with the landmark Vanashakti judgment on environmental protection.

Energy Security versus Risk Accountability

• The Bench emphasised that expanding nuclear energy is crucial for meeting India’s growing energy demands, subject to proper EIA notification procedures.

• With constraints on coal usage, environmental concerns under the Forest Conservation Act, and limited availability of natural gas, nuclear power is viewed as a necessary alternative.

• The Court acknowledged that achieving energy transition goals requires diversifying power sources while respecting Coastal Regulation Zone norms for plants located near coastlines.

• However, petitioners argued that inadequate compensation mechanisms and concerns over post facto approvals undermine victims’ rights in case of nuclear accidents.

• The debate reflects a broader policy dilemma: ensuring energy security while safeguarding public safety and environmental protection through stringent environmental clearance mechanisms.