In short :
India plans to expand its nuclear energy capacity from 8 GW to 100 GW by 2047. Discussions are ongoing to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010 and Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962 to allow private and foreign players in the nuclear energy sector.
Why are the amendments being proposed?
To Attract Foreign Participation
- Current liability laws deter foreign firms (e.g., Westinghouse, Rosatom, EDF) due to fear of unlimited liability.
- India’s indemnity clauses are seen as legally risky by suppliers.
Expand Domestic Capacity
- India’s indigenous capability may not be sufficient to scale from 8 GW to 100 GW without private and foreign help.
- Needed to meet clean energy goals and net-zero targets.
Leverage Global Technology
- Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and advanced designs can be brought in through tech transfer, licensing, and investment.
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010:
- Enacted by Parliament in 2010 to establish a legal framework for compensation in case of nuclear incidents.
- Based on international norms like the Vienna Convention, Paris Convention, and Brussels Supplementary Convention.
- Aligns India with global civil nuclear liability standards while addressing domestic concerns post the Bhopal gas tragedy.
Key Features
- Strict and No-Fault Liability: Operator held liable regardless of fault, ensuring prompt compensation to victims.
- Operator’s Liability Cap: Operator liable up to ₹1,500 crore (secured via insurance/financial security).
- Government Liability Beyond Cap: Central government steps in for compensation above ₹1,500 crore, up to 300 million SDRs (~₹2,100–2,300 crore).
- Right of Recourse (Section 17): Operator can recover damages from suppliers if:
- It is contractually agreed, or
- Supplier’s wilful misconduct/gross negligence is proven.
- Timeline for Incident Reporting: Incidents must be reported to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board within 15 days.
- Nuclear Damage Claims Commission: Set up to handle claims and ensure equitable compensation and efficient conflict resolution.
- Operator-Centric Liability Principle: Follows global best practices (as in the Convention on Supplementary Compensation) by channelling all liability to the operator.
Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962
Background
- Replaced the Atomic Energy Act, 1948.
- Passed by Parliament and came into effect on 15th September 1962.
- Framed to consolidate state control over atomic energy and minerals.
- Inspired by early leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Key Provisions
Government Monopoly (Section 3 & 5)
- Central Government has exclusive authority over nuclear production and use.
- Empowered to declare “prohibited areas” and regulate “restricted information.”
Regulation of Minerals (Section 4 & 6)
- Discovery of uranium/thorium must be reported.
- Government approval required for mining, processing, or sale.
- Can prohibit or direct any mining activity involving atomic minerals.
Land Exploration (Section 9)
- Govt can explore land for atomic minerals.
- Requires notification to landowners and compensation for damage.
Licensing & Safety Controls (Section 14)
- Activities involving atomic energy require licenses.
- Restrictions on information sharing and operation in sensitive areas.
- Licensees bound by rules on safety, secrecy, and environmental protection
Arguments For Amending the Law :
- Legal Hurdle: CLNDA’s supplier liability clause violates global norms like CSC, discouraging investment.
- Economic Logic: Companies won’t enter unless liability is capped and channelled solely to operators.
- Technology Transfer Possible: If market size justifies, companies may agree to limited tech transfer (esp. SMRs).
- India Needs Scale: To meet 100 GW, foreign and private capital is essential
- Global Norms Support Operator-Centric Liability: CSC has mechanisms to ensure quick relief without litigation delays.
Arguments Against Amending the Law :
- Investment Not the Main Barrier: Nuclear capacity expansion is globally sluggish, even in developed nations.
- No Demand from France or Russia: They haven’t asked for CLNDA changes.
- India Shouldn’t Risk Public Liability: Reducing supplier liability risks another Bhopal-like situation.
- No Guarantee of Technology Transfer: Defence sector FDI hasn’t yielded much; nuclear may fare the same.
- SMRs Still Experimental: Capital costs and scalability of SMRs remain uncertain.
- Risk of Policy Flip-Flop: Past opposition (e.g., NDA’s stance in 2012) makes this move look politically inconsistent.
Way Forward :
- India’s nuclear expansion is tied to legal certainty, energy transition, and climate goals.
- A balance is needed between investor confidence and public accountability.
- Technology transfer and safety regulation are key to India’s strategic autonomy in the nuclear sector.
- Global norms (CSC) support channelling liability to operators, but Indian socio-political context demands caution.
UPSC Relevance :
GS Paper 3 (Energy, Science & Technology)
GS Paper 2 (Governance, International Relations)
Possible Mains Question :
Discuss the challenges in expanding nuclear energy in India and how legal reforms can address them. (150 words)