Author: Gopika Karunakaran a student at Government law college, Vellore.
Abstract:
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLND Act) was established to address the legal framework for compensating victims of nuclear accidents in India. This article explores the Act’s provisions, focusing on the liability and compensation mechanisms for nuclear damage. It examines the key features of the Bill, including liability caps, compensation procedures, and the government’s role in addressing nuclear accidents. The article also addresses critical issues such as the adequacy of the liability cap, potential conflicts of interest in government involvement, and the challenges in ensuring fair compensation for victims. With India’s growing nuclear energy sector, the need for reforms to align the Act with international standards and improve victim protection is highlighted. The article concludes that while the CLND Act is a step forward, urgent reforms are needed to address current gaps in liability, compensation, and procedural efficiency to foster both safe nuclear energy growth and adequate victim protection.
Keywords:
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010,
nuclear damage compensation
nuclear accident
nuclear energy
India nuclear law
compensation procedures
international nuclear agreements
Introduction:
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 strives to address the civil needs of victims of nuclear disasters. This act assures appropriate recompense as a benevolent gesture for victims. The Civil responsibility for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 (CLND Act) provides India’s legal framework for nuclear accident responsibility. The government has lately declared plans to reform the Act to align it with worldwide nuclear liability standards in order to attract international investment and improve India’s nuclear energy sector. The plan to construct six nuclear power reactors in Maharashtra’s Jaipur, which is now the world’s largest nuclear power generation site under consideration, has been postponed for more than a decade due to concerns with India’s nuclear liability law.
Background – Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill:
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Bhopal tragedy have brought back into focus the issue of industrial accidents, contractual liabilities and questions of operator liability. The Bhopal tragedy which is closer to Indian hearts has engaged the Indian Government and Courts for over twenty six years and yet a solution acceptable to victims and other stakeholders is proving to be elusive. Every step from the Government and the Courts has been welcomed only with exasperated cries of ‘not enough’, ‘too little’ and ‘too late’.
Many questions remain unanswered: who was liable to compensate the victims of Bhopal Gas Tragedy? What ought to have been done to ensure immediate compensation to the victims? Could a structured legal regime have made the difference? Should there have been a liability regime in place before allowing units of the likes of Bhopal to be set up? Did India pay for the absence of a liability regime in terms of human lives, livelihoods and irreversible environmental degradation?
The World saw the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) & the Chernobyl accident (1986) follow in quick succession to each other. Though both accidents had different backgrounds, they opened up appreciation of the magnitude of damage and loss such tragedies could cause, especially nuclear tragedies which do not recognise any geographic or temporal boundaries. Damage caused by ionizing radiation to human cells may remain latent for a long time before manifesting itself. Even the best of safety standards cannot completely exclude the possibilities of nuclear accidents and in this light, the need to have a legal regime to compensate for damage and losses arising from nuclear accidents in India becomes evident.
Increasing energy availability in general and electricity availability in particular is not merely an economic pursuit for India but a social necessity. Enriching the quality of life of millions of ‘energy poor’. Indians while also facilitating the integration of their livelihoods into the formal economy is not possible without the supply of electricity. Nuclear energy is particularly attractive for electricity generation in India as India has entered a resource intensive high economic growth path just as the world has begun to recognize natural limits in the availability of cheap and easily accessible fossil fuels, as well as the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by fossil fuel combustion.
Highlights of the Bill:
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill of 2010 establishes liability for nuclear damage and sets up processes for compensating victims. The Bill establishes no-fault liability for operators and grants them a right of action against specific individuals.
It caps the operator’s liability at Rs 500 crore. The central government shall be held liable for any damages in excess of this amount, up to 300 million SDR. All operators (excluding the central government) must get insurance or provide financial security to cover their liabilities.
For government-owned facilities, the government will bear the complete liability of up to 300 million SDR. The Bill states who can seek compensation and which authorities will analyze and grant compensation for nuclear damage.Those who do not comply with the provisions of the Bill may face penalties.
Key issues & Analysis:
The operator’s liability cap (a) may not be sufficient to compensate victims in the event of a large nuclear disaster; (b) may prevent India from accessing an international pool of funds; and (c) is low in comparison to other countries. If all plants are government-owned, the operator’s liability cap is unnecessary. It is unclear whether the government plans to allow commercial operators to operate nuclear power stations.
The government will notify the public about the degree of environmental harm and the resulting economic losses. This may result in a conflict of interest in circumstances where the government is also responsible to pay reparations. The Bill’s right of recourse against the supplier does not comply with international accords that India may seek to sign.
The ten-year time limit for filing a compensation claim may be insufficient for persons who have suffered nuclear damage. The Bill allows operators and suppliers to be held accountable under other laws, but it is unclear which laws will apply. Different court interpretations may limit or increase the reach of such a clause.
Features of the Bill:
a. It defines nuclear events and damage, nuclear fuel, materials, and nuclear facilities, as well as nuclear facility operators.
b. It specifies who is responsible for nuclear damage and the financial limit of liability for a nuclear incident.
c. It establishes authorities to investigate claims and distribute compensation in cases of nuclear damage. It also stipulates who is eligible to seek compensation for nuclear damage, as well as how such compensation might be obtained and distributed.
d. It outlines penalties for failing to comply with the Bill’s provisions or any orders made under them.
The Bill says that the overall liability for a nuclear event shall not exceed 300 million Special Drawing Rights (about Rs 2100 crore at current exchange rates).
The operator’s liability shall be Rs 500 crore. If the obligation surpasses Rs 500 crore, the Central government will be held accountable for that amount (up to SDR 300 million). If damage occurs in a nuclear facility owned by the Central government, the government will be held totally accountable.
The Bill allows the central government to create two Authorities by notification:
The Claims Commissioner has civil court-like powers and will invite applications for compensation after a nuclear incident is notified.
If the central government believes that the amount of compensation may exceed Rs 500 crore, the claims will be heard by the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission rather than the Claims Commissioner.
An application for claiming compensation can be made by
- Person sustaining the injury
- owner of the damaged Property
- legal representative of a deceased person
- an authorised agent.
An application can be lodged within three years of the person becoming aware of nuclear damage. This right to make an application, however, expires 10 years after the date of notice of the nuclear incident.
Table 2: Liability of the operator and the government in the top 10 nuclear power generating countries, and India.
Country
Total generation
(MW(e))
Operator’s Liability
(USD million)
State Compensation
(USD million)
Total Liability
(USD million)
United States
France
Japan
Russia
Germany
South Korea
Ukraine
Canada
United Kingdom
Sweden
India
1,00,683
63,130
46,823
22,693
20,480
17,705
13,107
12,569
10,137
9,041
4,189
11,900
861
Unlimited
No amount specified
Unlimited
474
237
71
228
474
109
Unlimited
300
Unlimited
Unlimited
2,500
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
50
198
345
Unlimited
1,161
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
Unlimited
278
672
454
The Bill was introduced in The Lok Sabha on May 7, 2010 by the Ministry of Science and Technology And Earth Sciences. On May 13, 2010, the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment, and Forests (chaired by Dr. T. Subbarami Reddy). The Committee is due to submit its report within two months.
How Does CLND Act affect average Indians?
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act was passed in 2010, with the goal of establishing liabilities for providers in the event of a nuclear disaster. However, it has served as a source of dispute in moving forward with the India-US civil nuclear accord inked in 2008. The CNLD rule limited all obligations to 300 million Special Drawing Rights, or Rs 2610 crore. Now, in the event of nuclear damage, the government will be liable for an additional Rs 1110 crores. As a result, the government will end up spending Indian public money, which should be the suppliers’ responsibility.
The restricted amount of Rs 2610 will not be sufficient in the event of a nuclear accident, as we saw in the Fukushima disaster. Potential victims will suffer as a result of this. Section 17 of the CNLD statutes states that an operator’s right to recourse is optional, but serves as an enabling clause. This will prevent operators from suing suppliers. Overall, it will increase patients’ vulnerability to possible mishaps.
Conclusion:
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 marks a substantial advancement in India’s nuclear liability framework. However, issues about supplier liability, compensation limits, and administrative inefficiencies require immediate improvements. As India seeks to expand its nuclear energy sector, a balanced approach is needed to protect victims, attract investment, and promote clean energy development.
Bibliography:
