India Supreme Court: PIL Challenges SHANTI Act Liability Override

• India's Supreme Court is reviewing a public interest litigation challenging the SHANTI Act, 2025, regarding nuclear accident liability and regulatory independence.
• Petitioners argue the Act exempts nuclear plant suppliers and sets disproportionately low liability caps for operators.
• The Supreme Court observed that constitutional courts are not bound by statutory liability caps and can order higher compensation.
• CJI Kant stated that parliamentary caps do not preclude courts from determining fair and just compensation.
• The Court has sought responses from the Central government and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board on the matter.

Irrespective of provisions of the Act, nothing shall preclude a constitutional court to determine the amount of fair and just compensation.

India's Supreme Court has initiated proceedings in a significant public interest litigation (PIL) challenging key aspects of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act (SHANTI), 2025. On Monday, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, sought formal responses from both the Central government and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) regarding the petition. The PIL, brought by a group of retired civil servants and scientists, specifically targets provisions within the SHANTI Act related to liability for nuclear accidents and the perceived independence of the nation's nuclear regulatory body. This development signals a critical judicial review of India's framework for nuclear energy safety and accountability.

The core of the petitioners' challenge revolves around specific provisions of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act (SHANTI), 2025. Advocate Bhushan highlighted that the Act, as currently drafted, appears to exempt nuclear plant suppliers from any financial responsibility in the event of a nuclear accident. This exemption is a major point of contention, as it could leave victims without recourse against entities involved in the design or construction of faulty components.

Furthermore, the petition argues that the existing nuclear liability cap under the SHANTI Act for operators is set at a level that is alarmingly low when compared to the potential human and environmental costs of a major nuclear incident. This disparity, according to the petitioners, undermines the principle of adequate compensation for victims. Beyond the financial aspects, the PIL also questions the independence of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), suggesting that its current structure may compromise its ability to act as an impartial and effective regulator of India's nuclear sector.

In a pivotal observation during the hearing, the Supreme Court Bench indicated that statutory liability caps, such as those stipulated in the SHANTI Act, would not necessarily restrict constitutional courts from mandating higher compensation amounts if deemed appropriate. CJI Kant explicitly stated, "Irrespective of provisions of the Act, nothing shall preclude a constitutional court to determine the amount of fair and just compensation." This assertion underscores the judiciary's inherent power to ensure justice, even when specific legislative limits are in place. The Chief Justice further clarified that while "Central government owes certain liability under the Act," the existence of a parliamentary cap does not serve as an absolute bar to judicial discretion.

He reiterated, "The parliament imposes a cap, that does not bar the court. Irrespective of provision of the Act, nothing shall preclude a constitutional court to determine the amount of fair and just compensation." This strong stance suggests a potential India Supreme Court SHANTI Act liability override, where judicial review could lead to significantly increased nuclear accident compensation beyond statutory limits. This observation is crucial for understanding the potential for the Supreme Court India nuclear liability cap to be challenged and potentially exceeded by judicial order.

The Supreme Court's preliminary observations carry substantial weight, suggesting that the existing nuclear liability cap under the SHANTI Act may not be an absolute defense against claims for higher damages. This could have profound implications for nuclear plant operators in India, as well as their suppliers, by potentially increasing their financial exposure in the event of an accident. The Court's decision to seek responses from the Central government and the AERB marks the formal commencement of the legal process.

These entities are now required to present their arguments in defense of the challenged provisions of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act. The outcome of this public interest litigation will be closely watched, as it could reshape the landscape of nuclear plant operator liability India and influence future policy decisions regarding nuclear energy and the compensation framework for potential victims.

Lawyers advising nuclear operators or suppliers in India should note the Supreme Court's observation that constitutional courts may override statutory liability caps under the SHANTI Act, potentially exposing clients to higher compensation claims than anticipated. Compliance officers must reassess risk exposure and insurance coverage for nuclear accidents, considering that statutory limits may not be absolute defenses.

Source: Original reporting on Supreme Court proceedings.