Nuclear laws and the role of Opposition

Background & Context

• Nuclear energy in India:
  • Currently contributes just 3% of India’s power generation.
  • Installed capacity (2024): 24 nuclear plants with 8.8 GW.
  • Targets: 22.48 GW by 2031-32, 100 GW by 2047 (aligned with clean energy & energy security goals).
• Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, 2010 (CLNDA):
  • Enacted after India’s Civil Nuclear Agreement (2005–08) with the U.S.
  • Introduced liability framework for compensation in case of nuclear accidents.
  • Unique in holding suppliers of nuclear equipment liable, in addition to the operator (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited – NPCIL).
  • This provision discouraged foreign suppliers (U.S., France, etc.) from entering Indian market.
• Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (AEA):
  • Governs India’s nuclear sector.
  • Restricts participation to government-owned entities.
  • Private sector not allowed in nuclear energy production.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance), GS 3(Nuclear Energy)

Proposed Amendments

• CLNDA amendment:
  • Aim: Limit or remove supplier liability for nuclear accidents.
  • Would bring India’s framework closer to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) standards (operator-only liability).
• AEA amendment:
  • Aim: Permit private sector participation in nuclear power.
  • Long-debated issue since Raja Ramanna Committee report (1997).
  • Would open opportunities for private investment, especially in small modular reactors (SMRs).

Historical Context

• 2007–2010 debates:
  • UPA govt. faced stiff opposition (BJP & Left parties) during CLNDA drafting.
  • Background:
    • 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy → heightened demand for corporate accountability.
    • 2010 Fukushima disaster → reinforced global concerns about nuclear safety.
  • Opposition insisted on strong supplier liability to safeguard citizens.
  • Result: Suppliers clause inserted, but foreign suppliers withdrew → nuclear deals stalled.
• Earlier Opposition stances:
  • Patents Act amendment (1999–2005): Opposition initially blocked, later supported.
  • Insurance FDI & Land Boundary Agreement: Initially stalled, later supported.
  • Pattern: Opposition sometimes shifts stance when in power or national interest demands.

Current Political Dynamics

• Government’s Position (NDA):
  • Keen to amend CLNDA & AEA to:
    • Attract foreign suppliers (U.S., France, Russia).
    • Encourage private domestic players.
    • Accelerate nuclear capacity expansion to meet clean energy goals.
• Opposition’s Concerns (Congress & others):
  • Dilution of supplier accountability → increased domestic risk in case of accidents.
  • Favors international corporations over citizens.
  • Seen as appeasing U.S. & France (major reactor suppliers).
  • Citing Bhopal legacy, questions government’s ability to enforce accountability.

Key Issues for Debate

• Accountability vs. Investment:
  • Strong supplier liability = safety but deters investment.
  • Operator-only liability = global norm, but raises questions of justice for victims.
• Energy Security & Climate Goals:
  • Nuclear is crucial for India’s net-zero by 2070 roadmap.
  • Can provide stable, non-fossil baseload energy.
  • Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) emerging as game-changers – cheaper, safer, scalable.
• Waste Disposal & Safety:
  • Long-term nuclear waste management remains unresolved globally.
  • India must ensure transparent policy before major expansion.
• Judicial & Compensation Mechanisms:
  • Adequacy of compensation frameworks in case of accidents.
  • Avoiding repeats of Bhopal Gas Tragedy inadequacies.

International Angle

• U.S. & France:
  • Major nuclear technology suppliers, have pressed India for liability relaxation.
  • Without change, India’s nuclear deals (e.g., Jaitapur project with France’s EDF) remain stalled.
• Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC):
  • India acceded in 2016.
  • Requires liability on operators, not suppliers – current CLNDA seen as inconsistent.

Strategic Significance

• Nuclear energy expansion ties into:
  • Energy independence (reduce import dependence on coal & oil).
  • Geopolitics (India-U.S. nuclear partnership is cornerstone of strategic ties).
  • Climate commitments (non-fossil energy mix to rise to 50% by 2030).

Way Forward

• Need for balanced framework:
  • Protect citizens’ rights in case of nuclear accidents.
  • Ensure suppliers have some responsibility (e.g., defective equipment).
  • Align with international norms to attract investment.
• Role of Opposition:
  • Must engage in constructive debate, not blanket opposition.
  • Should push for safeguards (insurance pools, higher operator liability, safety regulators).
• Parliamentary Debate:
  • Should cover nuclear waste disposal, safety protocols, transparency in agreements, and citizens’ compensation.

Conclusion

• The issue is not just legal or political—it is about India’s energy future, climate obligations, and strategic autonomy.
• Opposition faces a choice: either repeat past obstruction or help shape a responsible, investor-friendly yet citizen-safe nuclear policy.