Plea before Supreme Court challenges SHANTI Act provisions for diluting supplier liability in nuclear disasters

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it will do an initial study of case files before hearing the petition challenging key provisions of Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (SHANTI Act).

The 2025 act permits private participation in the nuclear sector and restructures the liability framework in case of accidents.

The petition was filed by ex-civil servant EAS Sarma.

The matter came up for hearing before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Thursday when the judges said that they would like to read the case file well before taking up the matter.

“Let us see the regulatory and precautionary measures. Let us not create a scene that anyone before coming to the country thinks whether or not to,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.

"Now we are in a global village. The regulatory regimes have to be comparable now,” Justice Bagchi added.

The Bench said the matter would be heard at a later stage.

The petition, filed under Article 32, assails several provisions of the 2025 Act, including Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 39, 44, 67, 81 and 87.

It argues that the statute caps operator liability at the rupee equivalent of 300 million Special Drawing Rights and exempts equipment suppliers from liability, departing from the earlier framework under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which recognised an operator’s right of recourse against suppliers.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in MC Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram-Oleum Gas), the plea contends that nuclear activity is inherently hazardous and that the dilution of supplier liability violates settled environmental principles, including absolute liability.

The petition also questions the statutory scheme governing the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, contending that provisions relating to appointment and removal leave the regulator under executive control. It invokes India’s obligations under the Convention on Nuclear Safety to argue that there must be an effective separation between the operator and the regulator.

Among the reliefs sought are quashing of the provisions, a direction mandating joint and several liability of operators and suppliers, and the creation of an independent mechanism for appointment and removal of AERB members.

The petition also seeks a restraint on further expansion of nuclear activity involving private participation until an autonomous regulator, insulated from executive control, is established.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Live Thread]