The Supreme Court of India has sought clarification from the Central Government on whether the SHANTI Act prevents courts from awarding just compensation in nuclear accidents, highlighting a potential conflict in regulatory appointments.
- SC questions if the ₹3,000 crore liability cap precludes courts from granting fair compensation.
- Petitioners argue the SHANTI Act 2025 violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
- Concerns raised over 'conflict of interest' in the appointment of Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB) members.
The Supreme Court of India has intervened in a critical legal battle regarding the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana has asked the Central Government to clarify whether the statutory caps on liability prevent the judiciary from granting fair and just compensation to victims of a potential nuclear disaster.
The case was brought forward by a group of esteemed professors and scientists, led by former bureaucrat EAS Sarma. The petitioners argue that the SHANTI Act, which replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010, creates a dangerous precedent by exempting private operators from liability beyond ₹3,000 crore. Legal representatives Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi contended that such a cap essentially encourages operators to 'cut corners' on safety protocols to maximize profit.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this legal challenge strikes at the heart of India's energy security versus public safety debate. While the government aims to attract massive private investment in nuclear energy to meet climate goals, the SHANTI Act's liability limit could leave the state or the victims bearing the brunt of a catastrophic failure. The tension lies between economic incentive and fundamental constitutional rights.
"Capping liability in high-risk industries like nuclear power can inadvertently signal that safety is a secondary priority to financial viability."
Beyond compensation, the Court is scrutinizing the governance of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB). Under Section 17(4) of the Act, members are recommended by a panel constituted by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The petitioners argue this is a blatant conflict of interest, as the AEC is responsible for running the power stations that the AERB is supposed to regulate.
Historically, nuclear liability has been a global point of contention. Following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, many nations re-evaluated their liability frameworks. India's 2010 Act was already seen as a compromise; however, the 2025 SHANTI Act further shifts the risk profile, sparking concerns about the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Equality before Law).
| Feature | Civil Liability Act 2010 | SHANTI Act 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Private Participation | Limited/Regulated | Encouraged/Permitted |
| Liability Cap | Variable/Higher | Capped at ₹3,000 Crore |
| Regulatory Oversight | AERB Standard | AEC-Recommended Panel |
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the SHANTI Act 2025?
It is a legislation designed to incentivize private investment in civil nuclear power plants by capping the operator's financial liability in the event of an accident.
2. Why is the AERB appointment controversial?
Because the body that runs the plants (AEC) is recommending the people who regulate them (AERB), creating a 'fox guarding the henhouse' scenario.
