SHANTI Bill: Opposition slams 'oligarchisation' of nuclear energy, raises serious saf
SHANTI Bill: Opposition slams 'oligarchisation' of nuclear energy, raises serious safety, liability concerns
M.U.H
19/12/202514
The Rajya Sabha witnessed a sharp debate on the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, 2025 (SHANTI) on Thursday, with several Opposition members raising concerns over safety and liability of privatising nuclear energy.
During the discussion, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh recalled India's rich history in atomic energy and emphasised that key developments in the sector began decades before 2014.
Taking a dig at the BJP-led Union Government's penchant for acronyms and flashy legislative titles, he said scientific and institutional progress in the sector predates the current administration.
Ramesh noted that the first atomic energy legislation was passed on April 6, 1948, followed by the establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission on August 15, 1948, with Dr Homi Bhabha as chairman and K S Krishnan and Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar as members reporting directly to the Prime Minister.
He highlighted the creation of Indian Rare Earths Limited in 1950 and the Department of Atomic Energy in 1954, alongside the National Symposium on the Peaceful Application of Nuclear Energy, where Bhabha outlined the three-phase nuclear power programme.
"Dr. Homi Bhabha outlined three phases: uranium, plutonium-thorium, and thorium-uranium. Today, we have mastered the first phase, but we are stuck in the second phase...We have a fourth of the world’s thorium reserves, we are a uranium-deficient, thorium-rich country," the Congress MP said.
He quoted former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Dr Anil Kakodkar to note that India "should use thorium in the first phase as well, to leapfrog to the third phase."
"If we want energy security, we should use thorium reserves...We should take into account what our scientists are saying, instead of relying on what private companies from outside say," he said.
Describing the bill as the "oligarchisation" of India's nuclear energy system, TMC MP Sagarika Ghose argued that the legislation opens the sector to private control without adequate safeguards.
Echoing similar concerns, DMK MP P Wilson said the Bill fails to address serious safety issues and instead weakens supplier liability. He warned that nuclear installations remain unsafe, particularly in the context of climate change.
"In a volatile environment, with increasing cyclones, floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels, expanding nuclear power, especially under private control is a gamble with national security and human life," he said.
Wilson also pointed to the long-term dangers of radioactive waste, noting that India still lacks a proven, fail-safe disposal mechanism.
"The Bill proposes expansion without first resolving this historic injustice," he said, adding that it undermines decades of safeguards and threatens the country’s energy sovereignty.
Highlighting liability limits under the proposed law, Wilson further said, "Under the Bill, the operator liability for a central nuclear installation about 3600 MW is capped at a mere Rs 3000 crores, while for smaller reactors it is even worse, as low as Rs 100 crores. The total maximum liability for nuclear accidents is fixed at Rs 300 billion, and any costs beyond that has to be borne by the government, meaning that the taxpayer has to shoulder the cost for the negligence of private players."
He argued that this effectively allows private operators to exit after limited compensation, while the long-term burden falls on farmers, fishermen, workers, future generations and taxpayers.
Meanwhile, AAP MP Sandeep Kumar Pathak said the Bill imports a private nuclear model from abroad without adopting their regulatory systems.
Questioning India's preparedness, he said the country has struggled to build strong oversight even for coal plants.
"We haven’t been able to bring in an institutional framework for coal plants, which is a mature technology, so will we be able to do so for nuclear energy," he asked.
Pathak also stressed that nuclear regulators must be accountable to Parliament.
"In India, the operators, regulators and promoters are the same people. Those doing the policing should be an independent statutory body,” he said.
YSRCP MP Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla raised concerns over the lack of clear benefits for States and local communities from the proposed law.
"The Bill is largely silent on guaranteed local employment, priority power allocation or community development," he said, adding that it does not spell out how affected communities will be informed, represented or compensated.
BRS MP KR Suresh Reddy flagged safety risks, environmental liability gaps and issues linked to nuclear mining. He suggested that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee or placed under constant monitoring by the Environment Committee.
CPI(M) MP AA Rahim opposed the Bill, alleging that it was introduced primarily to benefit nuclear suppliers, while BSP MP Ramji also voiced his objections.
In contrast, independent MP Sudha Murthy supported the Bill, claiming the privatisation of the sector would create jobs and help reduce poverty.
"Nuclear energy is always associated with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but nuclear energy can be used in peaceful means. That’s why this Bill is called SHANTI Bill," she said.
Murthy added that nuclear power could play a key role in meeting India’s growing energy needs.
Rajya Sabha took up the discussion on the SHANTI Bill after it was passed in Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
