17 August,2026 02:06 PM IST | New Delhi | mid-day online correspondent
The Supreme Court has sought the Centre`s response on compensation provisions under the SHANTI Act. File pic
The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre's response on whether courts are barred from awarding fair and just compensation in cases of nuclear accidents under the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued a limited notice to the Centre while also seeking clarification on a possible conflict of interest in the appointment of members to the nuclear regulatory body under the Act.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a group of professors and scientists led by former bureaucrat EAS Sarma. The petitioners have challenged provisions of the 2025 law, claiming that they violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Appearing for the petitioners, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi argued that the law places a cap on liability in the event of a nuclear accident.
Chief Justice Kant, however, observed that there appeared to be considerable apprehension regarding the provision. He noted that even if Parliament had fixed a limit on the liability of nuclear plant operators, this would not necessarily prevent a court from awarding fair and just compensation.
The bench also observed that Parliament had enacted the legislation with the objective of incentivising project proponents and attracting investment into the nuclear energy sector.
Bhushan, however, argued that limiting liability could potentially create a situation where operators might compromise on safety standards.
The bench also asked the Centre to clarify provisions relating to the appointment of members of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Body (AERB).
Under Section 17(4) of the SHANTI Act, members of the regulatory body are recommended by a search and selection panel constituted by the Atomic Energy Commission.
Bhushan argued that this arrangement could create a conflict of interest, as the Atomic Energy Commission is responsible for operating atomic power stations while also having a role in recommending members of the regulatory authority.
The court has therefore sought the Centre's position on the issue.
The SHANTI Act, 2025 replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. The new legislation allows private companies to establish civil nuclear power plants while limiting an operator's liability to Rs 3,000 crore in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant.
The petitioners have challenged various provisions of the legislation before the Supreme Court.
On May 19, the apex court had observed that the issues raised in the challenge to the SHANTI Act involved aspects of economic policy.
(With inputs from PTI)
