Context

• India’s energy security and climate change commitments are at a crossroads, with the government preparing to revisit one of the country’s most contentious legislative debates: the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962.
• The proposed amendments, aimed at redefining liability frameworks and opening nuclear energy to private participation, will not only test the unity of the Opposition but also shape India’s nuclear future.

Historical Context of Nuclear Liability in India

• The roots of the current debate go back over fifteen years, when India, not party to existing global conventions, sought to establish its own framework for compensating victims of nuclear accidents.
• The CLNDA was enacted in 2010 against the backdrop of tragedies such as the 1984 Bhopal gas leak, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the Fukushima disaster in Japan.
• These events sharpened public and parliamentary concern about corporate accountability.
• The Opposition, then led by the BJP and Left parties, pushed for stringent liability clauses that extended beyond operators to include suppliers of nuclear reactor equipment.
• While this addressed public fears, it also deterred foreign suppliers, making the Act effectively unworkable.
• Attempts at reform over the last decade have met with little success, with Western suppliers remaining hesitant to enter the Indian nuclear market.

Political Contours of the Debate

• The issue of liability has always been politically charged. In 2007, the UPA government considered opening the nuclear sector to private participation, citing recommendations from the Dr. Raja Ramanna Committee.
• However, concerns about sovereignty, safety, and foreign influence stalled progress.
• Today, the BJP-led NDA government seeks to amend the CLNDA and the AEA to resolve supplier liability concerns and to pave the way for private investment in nuclear energy.
• The Congress, however, has raised objections, arguing that these changes dilute accountability, compromise safety, and prioritise foreign corporate interests, particularly those of France and the U.S., over citizens’ welfare.
• Such accusations echo earlier controversies, such as when the CLNDA was originally introduced in 2010 amid claims that it was timed to coincide with U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit.
• Then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rejected such assertions, insisting that India needed a liability framework to prepare for future nuclear expansion.

India’s Nuclear Ambitions and Energy Security

• Despite India’s nuclear aspirations, the sector’s contribution to the energy mix remains modest, only about 3% of total power generation.
• As of late 2023, 24 nuclear plants provided 8.8 GW of installed capacity, far below earlier targets.
• The government now envisions a steep climb to 22.48 GW by 2031-32 and an ambitious 100 GW by 2047.
• This expansion, however, hinges on two factors: resolving liability concerns to attract international suppliers and investors, and embracing new technologies such as small modular reactors.
• These reactors, already the focus of global competition, promise safer, more flexible nuclear power, but they also raise critical questions about waste management, regulation, and public trust.

Opposition, Precedents, and the National Interest

• The Opposition’s response will be decisive. Historically, parties have reversed their stance on contentious issues once in power, often in the name of national interest.
• The Patents Act amendment, the insurance FDI reform, and the Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh all saw initial resistance, followed by eventual bipartisan consensus.
• A similar shift may occur with the nuclear amendments. The Congress and other Opposition parties must weigh the risks of supplier protection against the urgency of clean energy expansion.
• In doing so, they must avoid reducing the debate to partisan rhetoric and instead engage with long-term questions:
  • How should India balance accountability with growth?
  • What safeguards are necessary for private sector participation?
  • And how will nuclear energy fit within the broader renewable energy transition?

The Way Forward: The Need for a Meaningful Debate

• The government, with its parliamentary majority, does not strictly need Opposition support. Yet a genuine, broad-based debate is crucial.
• The stakes involve not just liability provisions but also India’s trajectory toward climate goals, technological innovation, and global energy leadership.
• As one parliamentarian once warned, political role reversals should not entail policy reversals.
• The challenge before both government and Opposition is to transcend past standoffs and to shape a nuclear policy that is pragmatic, forward-looking, and uncompromising on safety.
• Only then can India reconcile its ambition for energy independence with its responsibility toward its citizens and the environment.

Conclusion

• The proposed amendments to India’s nuclear laws highlight the enduring tension between ensuring accountability and enabling growth in the energy sector.
• While liability concerns must not be dismissed, a pragmatic framework is essential to attract investment, expand nuclear capacity, and meet climate goals.
• Ultimately, bipartisan cooperation and a future-oriented debate will be key to aligning energy security with public safety and national interest.