Plea in Supreme Court challenges constitutionality of SHANTI Act on Nuclear liability

The landscape of Indian energy law is currently witnessing a tectonic shift as the Supreme Court of India prepares to adjudicate upon one of the most significant legal challenges of the decade. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been formally moved before the apex court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025. This legislative piece, intended to accelerate India’s transition to a carbon-neutral economy, has come under intense scrutiny for what petitioners describe as a “systemic dilution” of nuclear liability standards.

The petitioners, a formidable group comprising former high-ranking civil servants, nuclear scientists, and environmental legal experts, contend that the SHANTI Act prioritizes corporate indemnity over the fundamental rights of citizens. As a Senior Advocate observing the evolution of our environmental jurisprudence, it is clear that this case will redefine the boundaries between executive policy and the non-negotiable right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Genesis of the SHANTI Act: Ambition vs. Accountability

The SHANTI Act, 2025, was introduced by the Union Government with the stated objective of streamlining nuclear energy projects to meet the burgeoning power demands of a developing India. By centralizing regulatory approvals and revising the liability framework, the government aimed to attract both domestic private players and international suppliers who have long been hesitant due to India’s stringent liability laws.

Historically, India’s nuclear liability was governed by the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010. That Act was born out of the shadows of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, ensuring that the “Polluter Pays” principle was enshrined in the context of nuclear mishaps. However, the SHANTI Act introduces several amendments that critics argue effectively insulate suppliers and operators from the catastrophic financial consequences of a nuclear accident. The core of the legal dispute lies in whether the state can contract away the safety of its citizens in the name of technological progress.

Constitutional Grounds of the Challenge

The PIL filed before the Supreme Court rests on three primary constitutional pillars: the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and a Clean Environment), the infringement of Article 14 (Right to Equality/Non-arbitrariness), and the contravention of the “Doctrine of Absolute Liability” established by the Indian judiciary.

The Erosion of Article 21 and the Right to Safety

The most potent argument against the SHANTI Act is its perceived assault on Article 21. The Supreme Court has, through decades of progressive interpretation, included the right to a safe environment and protection against hazardous activities within the ambit of the Right to Life. The petitioners argue that by capping the liability of operators and severely restricting the right of recourse against suppliers, the Act creates a “shield of impunity.” In the event of a nuclear disaster, the compensation framework provided under the new Act is alleged to be grossly inadequate to cover the scale of potential biological and environmental devastation.

Manifest Arbitrariness and Article 14

Under the SHANTI Act, the compensation limits for nuclear damage are significantly lower than international benchmarks when adjusted for population density in India. The petitioners argue that these limits are “manifestly arbitrary.” By creating a legislative framework that treats victims of nuclear accidents differently (and less favorably) than victims of other industrial disasters, the Act is accused of violating the guarantee of equal protection under the law. There is no rational nexus between the objective of “energy security” and the means of “denying full restitution” to victims.

The Dilution of Supplier Liability: A Departure from Precedent

One of the most contentious provisions of the SHANTI Act is the virtual elimination of “Supplier Liability.” In the 2010 CLND Act, Section 17 provided the operator with a “right of recourse” against the supplier in cases of faulty equipment or latent defects. The SHANTI Act 2025, however, introduces clauses that allow suppliers to contractually opt out of this liability entirely.

From a legal standpoint, this is a radical departure from the principle of “Absolute Liability” laid down in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. The Indian judiciary has historically maintained that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity has an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community. By allowing suppliers—often multinational corporations—to escape accountability for defective components, the SHANTI Act shifts the entire burden of risk onto the Indian taxpayer and the potential victims.

The Concept of ‘Economic Viability’ vs. ‘Human Cost’

The Union Government’s defense hinges on the economic necessity of these provisions. They argue that without these protections, no international entity will supply nuclear technology to India, thereby stalling the “Green Energy” mission. However, the petitioners argue that “Economic Viability” cannot be a valid defense for the violation of fundamental rights. A Senior Advocate would argue that the “Price of Progress” cannot be the lives of the citizens, and the state’s fiduciary duty to protect its people outweighs its interest in commercial contracts.

The Jurisdictional Bar and Judicial Review

Another alarming feature of the SHANTI Act 2025 mentioned in the PIL is the inclusion of clauses that seek to limit the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Act proposes a specialized “Nuclear Damage Claims Commissioner,” whose decisions are subject to limited judicial oversight. The petitioners contend that this ouster of jurisdiction is an attack on the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution, specifically the power of Judicial Review.

If the judiciary is barred from scrutinizing the adequacy of compensation or the negligence of an operator, the checks and balances required in a democracy are compromised. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to access justice and the power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to review administrative action are inviolable. Any attempt to insulate the nuclear industry from the “Rule of Law” is likely to face heavy weather in the courtroom.

International Perspectives and the CSC

The SHANTI Act 2025 seeks to align Indian law more closely with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). While international alignment is generally beneficial for trade, the petitioners point out that India’s unique demographic profile makes a “one-size-fits-all” international model dangerous. In a densely populated country like India, the “damage per square kilometer” in a nuclear event would be exponentially higher than in the jurisdictions where these international conventions were drafted.

The legal challenge argues that the Union Government has misinterpreted international obligations to justify domestic deregulation. Being a signatory to an international convention does not empower the Parliament to enact laws that violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The principle of “Constitutional Supremacy” dictates that any international treaty must yield to the mandate of Article 21.

The Role of Former Civil Servants and Experts

The identity of the petitioners adds significant weight to this PIL. When former Cabinet Secretaries, Nuclear Scientists from the Department of Atomic Energy, and seasoned environmentalists move the court, the litigation transcends political rhetoric. These are individuals who understand the technical complexities of nuclear fission and the administrative hurdles of disaster management. Their primary grievance is that the SHANTI Act was passed without adequate public consultation and without a “Nuclear Safety Impact Assessment.”

The lack of transparency in the legislative process is a secondary but vital point of contention. In matters involving “high-risk technology,” the “Precautionary Principle” mandates a high degree of transparency and public participation. The petitioners argue that the SHANTI Act was “guillotined” through Parliament, bypassing the rigorous scrutiny of a Standing Committee, which in itself is a slight to constitutional morality.

Anticipated Arguments from the Union of India

As this case proceeds, we can expect the Union of India to raise the “Policy Matter” defense. The courts traditionally exercise restraint when it comes to the economic and technical policies of the government. The Attorney General is likely to argue that nuclear energy is a sovereign priority and that the court does not have the expertise to dictate the terms of nuclear liability.

However, the counter-argument is that “Policy” is not a blank check. If a policy—no matter how technically complex—infringes upon the fundamental rights of the citizenry, it is the bounden duty of the Supreme Court to intervene. The court is not being asked to run nuclear plants; it is being asked to ensure that those who run them are held accountable to the law of the land.

Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Indian Law

The challenge to the SHANTI Act 2025 is more than just a dispute over nuclear liability; it is a battle for the soul of Indian environmental jurisprudence. Will India continue to lead the world in upholding the “Absolute Liability” of hazardous industries, or will it succumb to the global trend of corporate-friendly deregulation?

The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter will have far-reaching implications. It will determine the safety standards for the next generation of Indians and set a precedent for how India balances its “Developmental Goals” with its “Constitutional Obligations.” As the highest court in the land takes up this plea, the citizens look toward it as the “Sentinel on the Qui Vive,” hoping that the “Shanti” (Peace) promised by the Act is not achieved at the cost of justice and safety.

The legal community expects a rigorous series of hearings where the nuances of nuclear physics will meet the timeless principles of Constitutional Law. Regardless of the outcome, the filing of this PIL has already succeeded in bringing a critical national issue out of the opaque corridors of power and into the transparent light of judicial scrutiny.