⚛️ Atoms, Accountability & Ambition: Rethinking India’s Nuclear Laws

Syllabus: GS3 – Energy / Environmental Governance / Infrastructure

Post Date: June 7, 2025

🌍 Thematic Focus:

India’s Energy Transition | Nuclear Energy Policy | Public Safety & Private Sector Participation

🪷 Intro Whisper:

As the world leans towards cleaner energy, India stands at a crossroads: should it unlock private potential in nuclear power or uphold its justice-based safety regime?

🔍 Key Highlights:

1. Context
India aims to ramp up nuclear energy to meet its net-zero goals and support a growing energy demand. However, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010 and Atomic Energy Act, 1962 currently restrict private/foreign participation, citing public safety and accountability.

2. Proposed Amendments

• Monetary Cap on Supplier Liability
• Time Limit on Liability
• Private & Foreign Participation: Through equity sharing or operational roles.

3. Arguments in Favor of Reform

• Global vendors avoid India due to supplier liability clauses.
• Foreign technology (esp. Small Modular Reactors – SMRs) crucial to scaling from current ~7 GW to 100 GW.
• India has already signed onto CSC (Convention on Supplementary Compensation), supporting operator liability norms.
• Legal reform could enhance supply chains and attract investment.

4. Arguments Against Reform

• Legal changes may not guarantee foreign interest or tech transfer.
• SMRs are untested, costly, and politically sensitive.
• India’s unique liability regime evolved from Bhopal & Chernobyl — public trust and accountability must prevail.
• Indigenous tech shows better promise — India has plans for five small reactors domestically.

🧠 Concept Explainer:

Nuclear Liability Debate

• Operator Liability: Followed globally under CSC. Burden lies with operator (NPCIL).
• Supplier Liability: India’s CLNDA uniquely allows suing vendors for defective parts in case of nuclear accidents — meant as a deterrent and justice mechanism post-Bhopal Gas tragedy.
• Issue: Foreign suppliers demand indemnity or a legal cap.

🗺️ GS Mains Paper Mapping:

🧭 A Thought Spark — by IAS Monk:

“Powering a nation must never come at the cost of silencing its conscience. In every reactor lies a reminder — progress is meaningful only when grounded in justice.”

High Quality Mains Essay For Practice :

Word Limit 1000-1200

IAS 2025 MAINS : High Quality ESSAYS For Essay Paper and GS Papers Content

Atoms, Accountability & Ambition: Rethinking India’s Nuclear Laws

Introduction India stands at a crucial juncture in its clean energy transition. With ambitious net-zero targets by 2070 and growing energy demand, the government is considering amending the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, to attract private and foreign investment in the nuclear sector. This move has reignited debates around energy security, legal safeguards, technological autonomy, and public safety. Is reforming the nuclear liability regime the key to unlocking India’s atomic potential, or does it risk diluting hard-won accountability?

India’s Nuclear Energy Vision India’s nuclear energy ambitions are part of a larger clean energy roadmap, aiming to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Nuclear energy, being a stable and low-carbon source, is expected to contribute significantly. The government has announced a target to expand nuclear capacity from the current 7 GW to over 100 GW by 2047. To meet this, India needs not only domestic scaling but also international cooperation, technology transfer, and financial investment—areas hindered by current legal frameworks.

Understanding the Legal Bottleneck The CLNDA, enacted in 2010, was a landmark law ensuring accountability in case of a nuclear accident. It assigned liability not just to operators but also to suppliers of equipment and technology. This was a departure from international norms where only operators are held liable. The law drew inspiration from tragedies like the Bhopal Gas Disaster (1984) and Chernobyl (1986), reflecting India’s sensitivity to industrial disasters.

However, this supplier liability clause has deterred foreign firms from entering India’s nuclear market. Countries like the U.S., France, and Japan have expressed concerns, demanding assurance against liability claims. Even Russia, India’s long-term nuclear partner, has been cautious post-2010.

Proposed Amendments Two major legal changes are being considered:

1. Amendments to CLNDA: Limiting the liability of suppliers by capping the compensation to contract value and introducing a statute of limitations.
2. Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act: Permitting minority equity participation by private and foreign firms, currently restricted to state-owned companies like NPCIL and NTPC.

These reforms aim to align India’s laws with international practices, particularly the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), which India ratified in 2016. CSC advocates exclusive operator liability, thus easing entry for foreign suppliers.

Arguments for Reform

1. Unlocking Investment and Technology Access: The existing liability regime has created a chilling effect on investment. Companies fear unlimited liability and litigation. Reforming the law could catalyze foreign direct investment (FDI), allowing access to modern nuclear technologies like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
2. Bridging Supply Chain Gaps: India lacks the domestic capacity to manufacture high-end nuclear equipment. Foreign collaboration is essential to scale rapidly, especially if 100 GW is to be achieved.
3. Aligning with Global Norms: Almost all countries follow the operator-liability model. India’s divergence makes it an outlier, complicating international cooperation.
4. Support for Emerging Technologies: Emerging technologies such as thorium reactors and SMRs require high capital and risk appetite. A balanced liability framework is crucial to encourage experimentation.

Arguments Against Reform

1. Misdiagnosing the Real Problem: Critics argue that legal hurdles are not the primary obstacle. Financial, infrastructural, and regulatory bottlenecks are more pressing. Nuclear energy is capital-intensive, slow to build, and vulnerable to cost overruns.
2. No Guaranteed Tech Transfer: Past experience in defense and aerospace shows that FDI does not ensure technology sharing. India may remain a consumer rather than a developer of nuclear technologies.
3. Public Safety and Sovereignty: Diluting liability may compromise public interest. India’s supplier liability clause serves as a deterrent and a moral stance rooted in justice. Capping liability shifts risks from corporations to citizens.
4. Geopolitical Risks and Overdependence: Over-reliance on foreign suppliers, especially from geopolitically volatile regions, could compromise strategic autonomy in energy.

Balancing Accountability and Ambition While the need for legal reform is valid, it must be approached cautiously. A hybrid model that retains supplier accountability for gross negligence, while aligning with CSC for normal operations, can strike a balance. Instead of blanket immunity, supplier liability could be limited but not eliminated.

India can also adopt a phased liberalization approach:

• Pilot private-public joint ventures on a limited scale.
• Maintain sovereign oversight through regulatory bodies.
• Incorporate strong auditing and safety mechanisms.

Lessons from the World Countries like the U.S. and France have vast nuclear energy capacities but face domestic opposition, aging infrastructure, and high costs. Germany is phasing out nuclear energy entirely. China, however, is aggressively expanding, using state-backed models and partnerships.

India must learn from these examples. A purely market-driven model may not work in nuclear energy. State-backed support, public trust, and strategic vision are indispensable.

The Way Ahead

1. Nurturing Indigenous Capability: Accelerate development of domestic reactor designs like the AHWR (Advanced Heavy Water Reactor) and PHWRs.
2. Strategic Use of Foreign Technology: Use foreign collaboration selectively in areas like fuel reprocessing, waste management, and grid integration.
3. Institutional Strengthening: Enhance capacity of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and create independent oversight.
4. Public Engagement: Raise awareness about nuclear safety, economic benefits, and disaster preparedness.

Conclusion India’s nuclear law reform debate is a microcosm of the larger tension between development and accountability. While attracting investment and technology is essential to meet clean energy goals, it must not come at the cost of public safety and sovereign oversight. Amending the CLNDA and AEA is not a silver bullet but one part of a multifaceted strategy. As India steps into a future powered by atoms, it must ensure that ambition does not eclipse accountability

Target IAS-26: Daily MCQs :

📌 Prelims Practice MCQs

Topic: Nuclear Laws