The Supreme Court on Friday briefly heard a public interest petition challenging the constitutional validity of key provisions of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, which imposes caps on liability for nuclear accidents.
The petition alleges that the Act violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the matter for further consideration, observing that the issues raised involve sensitive policy and safety concerns.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the SHANTI Act has replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. He pointed out that a challenge to similar provisions under the 2010 law, filed by Common Cause, is already pending before the Supreme Court.
Challenge to Nuclear Liability Caps
Explaining the core challenge, Bhushan argued that the SHANTI Act allows even private entities to establish nuclear power plants while capping their liability at ₹3,000 crore. He submitted that nuclear accidents can cause damage running into several lakh crore rupees, making such caps grossly inadequate.
According to him, the Act departs from the doctrine of absolute liability laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. He stressed that hazardous industries such as nuclear power plants must bear full responsibility for any harm caused.
Bhushan further contended that the Act limits the government’s liability to ₹4,500 crore. He argued that the liability framework prioritises private investment over public safety.
Concerns Over Private Participation and Safety
Bhushan submitted that private operators, backed by insurance coverage up to the statutory cap, would have little incentive to ensure the highest safety standards. He warned that this could encourage cost-cutting at the expense of safety.
While acknowledging that the legislation may seek to meet India’s growing energy needs, the Bench observed that a balance must be struck between national interest and potential loss.
When the Court remarked that the apprehended harm appeared hypothetical, Bhushan disagreed. He cited the nuclear disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima as concrete examples of catastrophic risk.
Debate on Energy Policy Choices
During the hearing, the Chief Justice noted India’s limited energy options, pointing to constraints on coal, forests and gas.
Bhushan countered that solar energy offers a viable alternative. He argued that nuclear power is significantly more expensive and claimed that its cost is nearly four times that of solar energy.
Justice Bagchi, however, observed that large-scale solar energy production depends on lithium, for which India remains dependent on China.
In response, Bhushan referred to the Enron power project, stating that it produced electricity at prohibitively high costs and has remained shut for over 15 years. The Chief Justice, however, noted that power subsidies extended by several States remain a major concern.
The Bench ultimately indicated that it would examine the issues in detail on a later date.
Who Filed the Petition
The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by former Union Power and Finance Secretary E.A.S. Sarma, former Finance Secretary and Planning Commission Member S.P. Shukla, former CSIR Chief Scientist Prof. Dinesh Abrol, former CSIR-IICT Chief Scientist K. Babu Rao, physicist and trade union leader Dr. Vivek Monteiro, and International Centre for Theoretical Sciences physicist Prof. Suvrat Raju.
Grounds of Constitutional Challenge
The petition seeks to strike down several provisions of the SHANTI Act on the ground that they dilute nuclear liability safeguards, weaken regulatory independence and curtail transparency, thereby endangering public safety and environmental protection.
The petitioners argue that the Act allows private and foreign entities to operate nuclear power plants while imposing what they describe as “absurdly low” liability caps and exempting suppliers from responsibility.
They challenge Sections 11 and 13, which restrict operator liability and cap the government’s residual liability at 300 million Special Drawing Rights, equivalent to approximately ₹3,000 crore.
According to the petition, these limits would leave victims of a nuclear accident unable to recover even a fraction of their losses.
Comparison With Past Nuclear Disasters
Drawing comparisons with past nuclear disasters, the petition cites estimates placing the damage from the Chernobyl accident between USD 235 billion and USD 700 billion. It also notes that the Fukushima disaster caused losses of around USD 400–445 billion.
The petition claims that the liability cap under the SHANTI Act amounts to less than 0.1 per cent of the losses suffered in these incidents.
Supplier Liability and Environmental Principles
The petition also challenges the removal of the operator’s right of recourse against suppliers, which was earlier recognised under Section 17(b) of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
According to the petitioners, the absence of supplier liability encourages manufacturers to compromise on safety, especially in a regime dominated by profit-driven private or foreign operators.
Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the petition submits that nuclear power plants fall within the category of hazardous industries governed by the principle of absolute liability.
It argues that statutory caps on liability violate established environmental law principles, including the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, sustainable development, inter-generational equity and the public trust doctrine, all of which form part of Article 21 jurisprudence.
Regulatory Independence and Right to Information
The petition further assails provisions relating to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. It contends that Sections 17 and 19 give the Central Government control over the appointment and removal of the regulator’s chairperson and members.
According to the petitioners, this creates an institutional conflict of interest and violates India’s obligations under the Convention on Nuclear Safety, which requires separation between regulatory and promotional functions.
Section 39 of the SHANTI Act has also been challenged for empowering the Central Government to exempt nuclear power stations from the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petition argues that this infringes the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
Nuclear Waste and National Security Concerns
The petition relies on G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India to submit that India still lacks a fully operational Deep Geological Repository for spent nuclear fuel, despite judicial recognition of long-term health and environmental risks.
It also raises national security concerns, arguing that expanded private participation in the nuclear sector increases the risk of misuse or sabotage of nuclear materials.
In this context, the petition refers to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Incident and Trafficking Database, which records more than 4,000 incidents involving illicit or malicious use of radioactive material.
Other Provisions Under Challenge
Beyond liability-related provisions, the petition challenges Sections 44, 67, 81 and 87 of the Act. It argues that these provisions confer sweeping exemption powers on the Central Government, extinguish claims despite the latent nature of radiation injuries, restrict access to judicial remedies and exclude concurrent civil remedies available under the earlier law.
The petition seeks a declaration that the impugned provisions of the SHANTI Act are unconstitutional and contrary to settled principles of environmental law and nuclear safety jurisprudence.
