Recipe for disaster? Bhopal shadows new nuclear Act: Analysis cites inadequate liability

By A Representative 

A critical analysis of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, has raised serious alarms about national safety, financial liability, and strategic oversight. Released by the advocacy group Center for Financial Accountability, the document, authored by K Ashok Rao, a senior power sector expert, argues that the Act, which seeks to replace the longstanding Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010, was passed by Parliament without adequate scrutiny, amidst opposition protest and walkouts.

The primary objectives of the SHANTI Act include opening India's nuclear power industry to private Indian and foreign players, specifically naming the Adani and Tata groups, and enabling the deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Bharat Small Reactors (BSRs). Currently, the sector is exclusively operated by the government-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), which the analysis notes has built 8,780 MW of capacity over six decades without a major accident.

The report highlights catastrophic risk, stating a meltdown of a 1000 MW reactor could kill millions and necessitate evacuations within a 30-100 km radius, halting all economic activity and rendering agriculture impossible for years due to radioactive fallout. It draws a direct parallel to the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy, where liability was severely limited, and long-term health and environmental consequences persist. The SHANTI Act caps operator liability between ₹100 crore and ₹3,000 crore (approximately $332 million at the upper end), a sum the analysis calls "paltry" and grossly inadequate when compared to the estimated $700 billion cost of Chernobyl or the nearly $400 billion impact of Fukushima.

A major point of contention is the shift in liability standards. The Act reportedly places sole liability for any accident, even one caused by faulty supplier equipment, on the plant owner, capping it at 300 million Special Drawing Rights (about $420 million). This introduces a "low liability regime" akin to that in the United States, despite the analysis claiming other international suppliers were willing to work under India's existing laws.

Further concerns are raised over the privatisation of the entire nuclear fuel cycle—including uranium mining, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing—activities previously under sovereign oversight due to their strategic implications. The promotion of untested SMR and BSR technology is also questioned, noting that only two such reactors are operational globally, in Russia and China, with a third in Argentina facing significant delays and cost overruns.

Additionally, the Act would grant private nuclear plants "must-run" status, similar to renewable energy sources, forcing power distributors to purchase their electricity even when cheaper alternatives are available, potentially raising costs for consumers.

The analysis concludes with a call to action, invoking Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's slogan to "Educate, Agitate, Organise," urging the public, particularly power sector employees, farmers, and workers, to oppose the legislation to avert what it terms an "impending disaster."