Congress flags ‘corporate push’ and liability dilution in SHANTI Bill, seeks JPC scrutiny

“When the UPA government was trying to break the nuclear apartheid through the Indo-US nuclear deal, our friends on the other side brought a no-confidence motion. It’s another matter that the motion was defeated. You people tried to derail India’s nuclear programme and covered yourself in ignominy,” he said.

Turning to the present Bill, Tewari alleged that it was designed to facilitate private participation in the nuclear energy sector, and raised questions about the timing of corporate interest. He pointed out that a major conglomerate that has built “an empire on leased public assets” had announced its intent to enter the nuclear energy space in late November 2025, followed by the introduction of the SHANTI Bill in December. “Is it a coincidence that the Adani Group announces its interest and within a month we have this Bill?” he asked.

‘Not a single clause about supplier liability’

A central plank of Tewari’s criticism was that the proposed legislation effectively repeals or renders toothless key provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. He said Section 17(b) of the 2010 Act provided the operator of a nuclear installation a right of recourse against suppliers if a nuclear incident occurred due to defective equipment, sub-standard services, or other supplier-related faults.

“This was a clause on which there was a consensus across the House,” Tewari said, noting that the Department of Atomic Energy had itself supported the provision when India began engaging foreign suppliers, and that it had the backing of senior BJP leaders, including the late Jaswant Singh.

“In this Bill, there is not a single clause which talks about supplier liability. It has been completely removed,” he said. “God forbid, if a nuclear incident takes place, and since we are going to depend on foreign suppliers as we open the sector to private players, shouldn’t the supplier be liable? The minister must explain how removing the supplier liability clause helps the country.”

Tewari also questioned the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s (AERB) autonomy, arguing that an expanded nuclear sector with private participation requires a truly independent regulator. “Is the AERB really autonomous? There is no clarity in the Bill. You need a neutral umpire,” he said.

Liability cap, insurance

Objecting to Clause 13 of the Bill, which caps liability in case of a nuclear accident at $410 million, Tewari drew a comparison with the Bhopal gas tragedy, where compensation amounted to $470 million. “Why is the government imposing these liability caps? The liability should be at least Rs 10,000 crore. I do not understand this graded liability,” he said.

He also flagged a provision exempting government-owned nuclear installations from mandatory insurance. “If the government says there is sovereign cover, that should be clearly mentioned in the Bill,” he said.

On radioactive waste management, Tewari said the Bill was silent on long-term handling of spent fuel, which remains toxic for thousands of years. “Most countries store spent fuel at the facility itself. This Bill does not provide a framework for the disposal of radioactive waste,” he said.

Arguing that the proposed law would undermine India’s energy independence and its clean energy goals, Tewari urged the government to refer the SHANTI Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for wider consultation and scrutiny.