The ambiguities in the nuclear liability law

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated28/04/2023

The issues regarding India’s nuclear liability law continue to hold up the more than a decade-old plan to build six nuclear power reactors in Maharashtra’s Jaitapur, the world’s biggest nuclear power generation site under consideration at present.

Laws on civil nuclear liability ensure that compensation is available to the victims for nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident or disaster and set out who will be liable for those damages.
The international nuclear liability regime consists of multiple treaties and was strengthened after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident.
Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC): It was adopted in 1997 with the aim of establishing a minimum national compensation amount. Even though India is a signatory to the CSC ratified in 2016.
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA): To keep in line with the international convention, India enacted it in 2010, to put in place a speedy compensation mechanism for victims of a nuclear accident.
- The CLNDA provides for strict and no-fault liability on the operator of the nuclear plant, where it will be held liable for damage regardless of any fault on its part.
India currently has 22 nuclear reactors with over a dozen more projects planned. All the existing reactors are operated by the state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

The international legal framework on civil nuclear liability, including the annex of the CSC is based on the central principle of exclusive liability of the operator of a nuclear installation and no other person.
In the initial stages of the nuclear industry’s development, foreign governments and the industry agreed that excessive liability claims against suppliers of nuclear equipment would make their business unviable and hinder the growth of nuclear energy, and it became an accepted practice for national laws of countries to channel nuclear liability to the operators of the plant with only some exceptions.
Two other points of rationale were also stated while accepting the exclusive operator liability principle — one was to avoid legal complications in establishing separate liability in each case and the second was to make just one entity in the chain, that is the operator to take out insurance, instead of having suppliers, construction contractors and so on take out their own insurance.

Foreign suppliers of nuclear equipment from countries as well as domestic suppliers have been wary of operationalising nuclear deals with India as it has the only law where suppliers can be asked to pay damages
Concerns about potentially getting exposed to unlimited liability under the CLNDA and ambiguity over how much insurance to set aside in case of damage claims have been sticking points for suppliers.
The latter clause goes against the Act’s central purpose of serving as a special mechanism enforcing the channelling of liability to the operator to ensure prompt compensation for victims.
In the absence of a comprehensive definition on the types of ‘nuclear damage’ being notified by the Central Government the clause potentially exposes suppliers to unlimited amounts of liability.

The central government has maintained that the Indian law is in consonance with the CSC.
Further it states that the provision “permits” but “does not require” an operator to include in the contract or exercise the right to recourse.

Thus, we see though India is at par with other nuclear capable countries when it comes to having a comprehensive law dealing with damages for nuclear disasters but there are many loopholes to be plucked.
The law in our country must present a more effective mechanism when it comes to dealing with issues enumerated above.
Along with solving the ambiguities present an attempt must be made to have a fine balance of the aspirations of suppliers, the state and the civil society.