Indian Parliament Passes SHANTI Bill, Raising Concerns Over Liability

The Indian Parliament has passed the Sustainable Harnessing And Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill 2025, a legislative move that has sparked significant debate regarding its implications for nuclear safety. Senior Congress MP, Manish Tewari, articulated several concerns about the new law, particularly focusing on its potential to diminish safety standards and shift liability away from suppliers.

This legislation aims to achieve three main objectives. Firstly, it seeks to open the nuclear sector, considered a strategic area, to private investment. Secondly, it removes the supplier liability clause established in 2010, a point that Tewari finds troubling. He stated it is “inexplicable” to exclude such a clause at a time when private participation is being encouraged, effectively granting suppliers a “free pass.” Lastly, the Bill exempts government-owned nuclear reactors from mandatory insurance coverage, raising questions about accountability in the event of an incident.

Tewari highlighted that the liability limit set at 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR), approximately USD 417 million, is alarmingly low. He noted that this amount is less than what the Supreme Court awarded as compensation for the Bhopal gas disaster. The concerns extend to the management of spent fuel, particularly plutonium and uranium, which remain hazardous for thousands of years. Tewari emphasized that clear protocols should have been included in the Bill to address these critical safety issues.

The debate surrounding the SHANTI Bill has intensified, with some MPs accusing the government of rushing the process. Tewari pointed out the potential threat to the autonomy and independence of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). He argued that the hurried passage of the Bill suggests a desire to accommodate foreign companies involved in the nuclear sector, raising suspicions about the government’s motives.

Tewari also referred to the 2010 consensus, which was reached after extensive consultations among political leaders, including the late Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley. He expressed disappointment that the rigor present during those discussions was lacking this time, pointing to a failure to protect the interests of Indian citizens living near nuclear facilities.

In response to government claims that the 2010 law hindered progress in the nuclear sector, Tewari argued that robust safeguards are essential. He asserted that historical incidents, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, highlight the necessity for stringent regulations to prevent catastrophic failures.

The government has suggested that operators can negotiate liability arrangements independently with suppliers, but Tewari contends that this flexibility does not replace the need for mandatory provisions. He stressed that the reliance on foreign technology for reactor design and installation necessitates protective measures to ensure accountability for Indian companies entering the nuclear market.

Additionally, Tewari commented on the merging of existing legislation into the SHANTI Bill. He noted that the government claimed to retain most provisions from the 1962 Nuclear Power Act and the Civil Nuclear Liability Act. Nevertheless, he believes a standalone law dedicated to empowering and insulating the AERB would have been a more prudent approach.

As the nuclear energy sector in India evolves, the implications of the SHANTI Bill will require careful scrutiny to ensure that safety and accountability remain paramount in this vital industry. The ongoing discussions surrounding the Bill reflect broader concerns about the balance between promoting investment and protecting public safety in the nuclear arena.