Why is it in News?
- Parliament has passed the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy in India (SHANTI) Bill.
- It opens India’s nuclear power sector to private and foreign participation — ending the exclusive State-run regime since 1956.
- Opposition demanded Select Committee review, citing concerns about:
- diluted liability
- safety and transparency risks
- weakening RTI and labour safeguards
- The government argues the law is essential for energy security, baseload power, clean energy, and nuclear expansion.
Relevance
GS-2 | Polity & Governance
- Public sector reforms, regulatory institutions, accountability
- Parliamentary oversight, transparency, RTI, labour safeguards
- State vs market role in strategic sectors
GS-3 | Economy / Infrastructure / Energy
- Nuclear energy policy, investment models, PPP in strategic sectors
- Energy security, baseload power, Net-Zero strategy
- Technology partnerships & FDI policy constraints
The Basics — Nuclear Governance Before SHANTI
- Sector governed by:
- Atomic Energy Act, 1962
- Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010
- Nuclear operations were monopolised by NPCIL.
- Private/foreign role restricted due to:
- strict supplier liability
- high legal risk exposure
- Result → capital shortage, slow capacity addition, stalled global partnerships.
What the SHANTI Bill Does ? — Core Provisions
- Opens nuclear projects to private Indian companies (licences to own, build, operate plants)
- Allows foreign supplier participation (indirectly, via JV / supply chains)
- Government to retain 51% control over strategic & sensitive functions:
- nuclear fuel cycle / reprocessing
- heavy water & enrichment
- radioactive waste & spent fuel
- radiation safety & emergency systems
- regulatory oversight
Ends NPCIL’s monopoly
- Enables PPP-style model
- Private role in:
- equipment & fuel fabrication
- reactor construction & operation
- R&D and advanced technologies
Supports deployment of:
- Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
- Advanced Pressurised Water Reactors
- Indigenous reactor designs
Policy link: ₹20,000 crore allocation announced for SMRs & advanced reactors under the Nuclear Energy Mission.
Regulatory Architecture — Role of AERB
- Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) given statutory status
→ now answerable to Parliament, not only the executive - Mandate:
- nuclear & radiation safety
- licensing & inspection
- emergency preparedness
- quality & industrial safety compliance (Factories Act linkage)
Criticism flagged:
Concentration of regulatory power in one body → demand for independent nuclear safety commission.
What Has Changed on Liability?
Earlier regime (CLND Act, 2010)
- Operators could recover liability from suppliers for:
- defective parts, design faults, wilful acts
- Supplier liability discouraged foreign entry.
Under SHANTI — Predictable, Capped Liability
| Plant Type | Capacity | Operator Liability Cap |
| Large plants | ~3600 MW | ₹3,000 crore |
| Medium plants | 1500–3600 MW | ₹1,500 crore |
| SMRs | ~150 MW | ₹100 crore |
| Penalty for violations | — | ₹1 crore (cap) |
- Beyond the cap → Union Government pays, supported by a Nuclear Liability Fund.
- Supplier liability removed completely.
Government reasoning:
Predictable liability → lowers risk → attracts investment & technology inflow.
Opposition argument:
Shifts burden to State & society → weakens polluter-pays principle.
Comparative data point
- Fukushima damages ≈ 700× higher than SHANTI’s proposed liability cap
→ highlights catastrophic-risk underestimation concern.
Safeguards Retained
- No automatic FDI permission — route remains case-specific & regulated
- AERB authorisation required for:
- possession, production, disposal of nuclear/radiation materials
- establishing & operating facilities
- Government retains:
- fuel reprocessing, enrichment, heavy-water production
- high-level waste management
- Nuclear Liability Fund created for accident compensation.
Transparency, Labour & Safety — Contested Clauses
Concerns Raised
- Section 39 — overrides RTI Act review & appeal mechanisms
→ restricts public access to safety & operational information. - Section 42 — exempts nuclear workers from general labour safety laws
→ unions term it “draconian”. - No statutory requirements for:
- public hearings
- EIA disclosure
- community consent
- periodic safety reporting / parliamentary review
Government’s Position — Rationale & Benefits
- Strengthen energy security & baseload capacity
- Reduce dependence on:
- coal & fossil imports
- single-country nuclear partnerships
- Support:
- Net-Zero 2070
- clean energy & grid stability
- Reactivate stalled deals with U.S., France, Japan
- Encourage technology diversity + investment inflow
Why Nuclear Energy Matters for India ?
- Renewables intermittency + storage costs
- India still relies heavily on coal for power
- Nuclear provides:
- 24×7 baseload
- very low lifecycle emissions
- long-term cost stability
Current nuclear profile
- 25 reactors across 7 plants
- 21 PHWRs + 4 LWRs
- Installed nuclear capacity ~7 GW (≈ 3% of total electricity mix)
- Long-term strategy built around thorium cycle & fast breeder reactors
Opposition’s Key Criticisms
- Accountability diluted, private profit + public risk
- Liability caps too low, supplier walks free
- RTI override weakens public oversight
- Labour protections diluted
- Vendor-driven push despite indigenous thorium tech capability
- Lack of safety-democracy mechanisms (consultation, EIA transparency)
- Global comparator:
- France keeps nuclear under full state control
- Labels the Bill as:
- pro-corporate / pro-oligarch
- risking public safety & environment
Strategic & Governance Implications
- Marks a paradigm shift: State-monopoly → regulated PPP model
- May accelerate:
- capacity addition
- financing & technology partnerships
- Raises structural questions:
- Are liability caps socially optimal?
- Is independent nuclear safety regulation adequate?
- Can transparency be ensured without weakening security?
Takeaways
- SHANTI Bill = Liberalisation of nuclear sector + capped operator liability + removal of supplier liability + PPP-driven expansion under State oversight.
- Balances investment predictability vs public safety & accountability risks.
- Core tension = Energy security + clean baseload ↔ liability, transparency, labour & safety concerns.
