Bill tabled again
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill was re-tabled in Parliament following the furore last month. The Bill was re-introduced without any changes or amendments, causing another walkout in Parliament. 

The Union government has avoided tabling the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill in Parliament owing to nearly all Opposition Parties indicating their strong disapproval over the Bill and some of its key clauses. While the Left wants a complete scrapping of the bill, the BJP and other Parties say the liability cap is far too low. Even within the Congress, there is concern over the low cap on liability, with NSA advisor Shiv Shankar Menon having to speak to Congress MPs to ‘clear their doubts’. Even the environment ministry has expressed its concerns over the low priority given to compensation for loss of life, health damages and damages to environment and property.

In its current form, the Bill allows nuclear reactor suppliers to get away scot free in the event of a nuclear mishap, with damages only payable by the operator. While there is a provision to alter the amount payable, the debate rages over the very idea of placing a cap on technologies as hazardous as nuclear energy.

What’s wrong with the Bill:

   1. The bill caps civil liability of operators of nuclear plants at a paltry Rs. 500 crore (USD 109 million): the operator in this case is most likely to be the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL).
   2. Such a clause clearly provides immunity to suppliers (most likely to be US and some French and Russian companies).
   3. The Bill provides a clause referring such matters to a commission set up by the centre – effectively making the government liable.
   4. A maximum overall compensation per nuclear incident has been pegged at 300 million SDR (454 million USD/ Rs. 2200 crore ).
   5. A ten-year limit to liability – too low for nuclear installations

In comparison, the US has provision for a USD 10 billion (Rs. 45800 crore) cover in case of damages, not payable by the government. Countries like Japan, Germany and Sweden impose an unlimited liability on the operator, supplier and transporter of hazardous waste, and often demand a whopping security deposit.

It’s the Principles, Honey.

The low liability cap violates both the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle. The former suggests that no activity with inadequately understood hazards should be undertaken or continued, and the latter says that those causing damage must pay up the compensation. Both these principles have been upheld by the Supreme Court in several judgments, as well as under Articles 21 and 48A of the Indian Consitution, which upholds the right to life and safeguarding environment.

The cap on liability, that too at just Rs. 500 crores payable by the operator, means that damages over and above 500 crore are to be paid by the government or the citizens themselves. Plus there is no penalty for poor design quality or manufacturing defects.