The Hindu: - Published on 19 December 2025
Why in News
The Lok Sabha passed the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025, proposing major reforms in India’s nuclear energy sector. The Bill has sparked intense political controversy, mainly over the removal of supplier liability under the existing nuclear liability regime. It will now be taken up in the Rajya Sabha.
What is the SHANTI Bill, 2025?
The SHANTI Bill seeks to modernise India’s nuclear energy ecosystem in order to:
- Expand nuclear power capacity
- Attract private and foreign investment
- Support clean energy transition and net-zero commitments
A central element of the Bill is the amendment of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010, which governs compensation and accountability in case of nuclear accidents.
India’s Existing Nuclear Liability Framework
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 was enacted in the aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, reflecting strong societal emphasis on corporate accountability.
Key Features of CLNDA (2010):
- Primary liability rests with the operator (usually NPCIL)
- Unique provision allowing the operator to seek right of recourse from suppliers if accidents occur due to defective equipment
- This approach deviated from global norms, where liability is generally confined to operators
Impact:
- Foreign suppliers were reluctant to invest due to:
- Fear of open-ended liability
- High insurance costs
- As a result, the full potential of the India–US Civil Nuclear Agreement (2008) remained unrealised, despite India receiving an NSG waiver.
Major Change Proposed Under SHANTI Bill
Removal of Supplier Liability
- The Bill removes the provision that allowed operators to claim compensation from equipment suppliers.
- Aligns India with international nuclear liability conventions.
Cap on Operator Liability
- Operator liability reportedly capped at ₹3,000 crore.
- Opposition questioned:
- Scientific basis of the cap
- Adequacy of compensation in case of a large-scale accident
Why Has the Bill Triggered Opposition?
1. Public Safety and Accountability
Opposition parties argue that:
- Removing supplier liability weakens safety safeguards
- Financial burden of accidents may shift to the State and taxpayers
- Victim compensation mechanisms could be inadequate
Congress MP Manish Tewari recalled that the BJP had earlier criticised the absence of such liability provisions during the 2008 nuclear deal debate.
2. Allegations of Corporate Favouritism
Concerns were raised about:
- Timing of the Bill
- Reports of interest from large conglomerates, particularly Adani Group
The government dismissed these claims as baseless and politically motivated.
Government’s Rationale for the Reforms
Technological Evolution
- Nuclear technology has advanced since 2010
- Shift towards Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
Features of SMRs:
- Smaller size
- Enhanced passive safety systems
- Lower probability of catastrophic accidents
- Can be deployed closer to consumption centres
Lower Risk Profile
The government argues that:
- Modern reactors significantly reduce accident risks
- The earlier liability framework no longer reflects present-day realities
Energy Transition Imperatives
- India faces:
- Rising energy demand
- Fiscal constraints
- Need to reduce fossil fuel dependence
- Private participation is viewed as essential for scaling nuclear capacity
Political and Economic Dimensions
Opposition parties linked the Bill to:
- Declining foreign investment
- Currency depreciation
- Global trade and geopolitical pressures
They alleged dilution of public interest to attract capital.
The government countered that the Bill is policy-driven, not company-specific, and essential for energy security.
Implications of the SHANTI Bill
Positive Outcomes
- Boosts domestic and foreign nuclear investment
- Accelerates nuclear capacity expansion
- Aligns India with global nuclear liability norms
- Supports climate commitments and energy security
Concerns and Challenges
- Reduced supplier accountability
- Questions over adequacy of victim compensation
- Need for stronger regulatory oversight
- Calls for wider parliamentary and public consultation
Way Forward
- Strengthen Regulatory Oversight: Empower the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) with greater autonomy, transparency, and technical capacity to ensure independent safety supervision.
- Robust Compensation Mechanism: Create a dedicated Nuclear Accident Compensation Fund, with mandatory insurance and government backstopping, to ensure timely and adequate relief to victims.
- Balanced Liability Framework: While aligning with global norms, retain contractual safeguards to hold suppliers accountable for proven negligence or defective equipment.
- Phased Private Participation: Begin private entry with non-core areas such as construction, fuel cycle support, and SMR deployment, before expanding into full operations.
- Enhanced Parliamentary Scrutiny: Refer sensitive provisions to standing or select committees to build political consensus and public trust.
