The Supreme Court of India has asked the Central Government whether the SHANTI Act 2025 prevents courts from awarding just compensation in nuclear accidents, raising concerns over capped liabilities for private operators.
- SC questions if SHANTI Act 2025 precludes courts from granting fair compensation for nuclear mishaps.
- Petitioners argue that capping operator liability at ₹3,000 crore encourages 'cutting corners' in safety.
- The court is examining potential conflicts of interest in the appointment of AERB members.
- Advocate Prashant Bhushan suggests solar energy as a safer, cheaper alternative to nuclear power.
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant legal intervention, has sought clarification from the Central Government regarding the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025. The core of the judicial inquiry is whether this new legislation, which replaces the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010, restricts constitutional courts from determining "fair and just" monetary compensation in the event of a nuclear catastrophe.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notices to the Centre and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). The court is specifically scrutinizing Section 17(4) of the Act, questioning if the power to appoint the Chairperson and members of the AERB creates a conflict of interest, potentially compromising the independence of the regulatory body.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this case strikes at the heart of the "Absolute Liability" principle established by Indian jurisprudence. By capping the liability of private operators at ₹3,000 crore and the government's residual liability at ₹4,500 crore, the SHANTI Act potentially shifts the financial burden of a disaster from the corporation to the public and the environment. This creates a dangerous moral hazard where profit motives might supersede stringent safety protocols.
"The principle of absolute liability for hazardous industries is a cornerstone of Indian law; any legislative attempt to cap this liability could undermine public safety and environmental justice."
During the proceedings, Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted the catastrophic scales of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, arguing that actual costs would dwarf the statutory caps. He contended that if operators believe their financial exposure is limited, they may be incentivized to ignore critical safety upgrades. Furthermore, Bhushan pointed out a systemic flaw: the AERB both operates and regulates nuclear plants, which he claims violates international conventions on regulatory independence.
The discussion also pivoted toward energy alternatives. Bhushan presented data suggesting that India's solar potential (3,343 GW) is vastly superior to nuclear energy, noting that solar power is not only hazard-free but also significantly cheaper to produce per unit and faster to deploy.
| Feature | Nuclear Energy (SHANTI Act) | Solar Energy (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Liability | Capped (₹3,000 - ₹4,500 Cr) | Minimal/No Catastrophic Risk |
| Cost per Unit | Higher | Approximately 1/5th of Nuclear |
| Deployment Time | Years | Approx. 3 Months |
| Risk Level | High (Radiation/Meltdown) | Very Low |
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the SHANTI Act, 2025?
It is the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, which governs nuclear energy and replaces the 2010 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act.
2. Why is the ₹3,000 crore cap controversial?
Critics argue that nuclear disasters cause damages in the trillions, and a small cap encourages operators to cut safety costs, knowing they won't pay the full price of a failure.
