Kudankulam Nuclear Plant's safety analysis report exempt from RTI disclosure: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Safety Analysis Report of Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [Nuclear Power Corporation Vs SP Uday Kumar].

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside a direction issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to supply the safety analysis report (SAR) to RTI applicant SP Udaykumar.

The Court held that NPCIL held the report in a fiduciary capacity in relation to the Russian Federation and, therefore, it was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

“The petitioner holds the SAR in a fiduciary capacity qua the Russian Federation. Under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, such information is clearly exempt from the scope of the statute,” the Court said.

The Court also held that the report was covered by Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the scientific, strategic and economic interests of the State, as well as foreign relations with a foreign State.

The case arose from an RTI application filed in 2010, when the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant was under construction. Udaykumar had sought information relating to Reactors I and II, including the safety analysis report, site evaluation report and environmental impact assessment report.

NPCIL furnished the EIA report but refused to provide the safety analysis report and the site evaluation report. It said the documents contained proprietary details of the reactor design and were exempt from disclosure.

The CIC, by an order passed in April 2012, directed NPCIL to provide copies of the two reports after severing any proprietary details of designs. It also directed NPCIL to publish the same on its website.

NPCIL challenged the CIC order before the High Court.

During the hearing, NPCIL told the Court that the site evaluation report had already been furnished to the RTI applicant and uploaded on its website after the filing of the petition.

Therefore, the only issue before the Court was whether the direction to disclose the safety analysis report could be sustained.

NPCIL argued that the Kudankulam project was established pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement between India and Russia. Under this arrangement, the design of the plant was to be done by the Russian Federation, while construction, erection and commissioning were to be carried out by NPCIL.

The Court noted that NPCIL had communicated the CIC order to Atomstroyexport, the Russian entity involved in the project, and that Atomstroyexport had objected to publication of the safety analysis report.

The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in G Sundarrajan v Union of India, where safety-related aspects of the Kudankulam project had been considered.

In that case, the Supreme Court had noted that the Kudankulam plant incorporated advanced safety features. It had also referred to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s post-Fukushima safety recommendations and the safety review undertaken for Indian nuclear power plants.

Justice Kaurav said that since the Supreme Court had already adequately considered and rejected safety-related concerns regarding Kudankulam, there was no larger public interest warranting disclosure of the Safety Analysis Report.

“Considering the Supreme Court decision in G Sundarrajan, wherein, the safety related concerns have been adequately considered and rejected, there cannot be any larger public interest concerns warranting disclosure of the information,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the CIC’s direction with respect to the disclosure of the safety analysis report.

NPCIL was represented by advocates ER Kumar, DP Mohanty, Aditya Sharma and Jayant Bajaj.

The respondent was unrepresented.

[Read Judgment]