While the SHANTI Bill prepares the floor for private nuclear expansion, the Climate Change (Mitigation and Adaptation) Bill, 2025, provides the overarching “legal architecture” for India’s net-zero transition. On paper, it is a masterstroke of environmental governance; in reality, it contains a series of “silent clauses” that may inadvertently act as a secondary shield for corporate liability.
The Bill introduces a new legal concept: “Climate Change Duties.” However, a deep dive into the text reveals that these duties might be more about compliance paperwork than consequential accountability.
The “Duty” Dilution: Obligations without Teeth
The Bill mandates that private entities have a “statutory obligation” to implement climate actions. However, it fails to define the penalties for failure.
The Grey Area
If a private nuclear operator (authorized under the SHANTI Bill) fails to meet its “Adaptation Duty”—for instance, failing to fortify a plant against rising sea levels or intensified cyclonic surges —the Bill is conspicuously silent on criminal negligence.
The Conflict
By labeling safety measures as “Climate Adaptation,” corporations can argue that a failure was a “policy lapse” rather than “industrial negligence,” potentially shielding themselves from the harsher punishments of the Environmental Protection Act.
Regulatory Capture: The National Authority Paradox
The Bill establishes the National Climate Change Authority (NCCA). While it sounds robust, its structure reveals a massive overlooked issue: Overlapping Jurisdiction.
The Oversight Gap
The NCCA is chaired by the Prime Minister. The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) also reports to the PMO. This creates a “closed loop” of oversight where the regulator (NCCA) and the promoter (DAE/Private Nuclear JVs) are managed by the same executive office.
The “Clean Energy” Loophole
Under Section 29, the Central Government can exempt any plant or project from oversight if it is deemed “insignificant” to climate risk.
This is a “backdoor” through which nuclear facilities—often marketed as the ultimate “clean energy” solution—can bypass the very environmental scrutiny the Bill claims to enforce.
The “Adaptation” vs. “Accident” Trap
One of the most critical and overlooked issues is how the Bill redefines “Disaster.”
The Shift
By categorising events like extreme floods or heatwaves purely as “Climatic Stimuli,” the Bill shifts the burden of preparedness from the Polluter to the State.
The Nuclear Nexus
If a “supercharged” cyclone (like Ditwah) causes a leak in a privately run SMR (Small Modular Reactor), the operator can claim the event was a “Climate Change Stimulus” beyond their “Adaptation Duty.”
Under the SHANTI Bill, their liability is already capped; under the Climate Change Bill, they might be shielded by the “Act of God” defence, now legally rebranded as “Climatic Stimuli.”
Federalism Under Fire: Silencing the States
While the Bill talks about “State Climate Funds,” it effectively centralizes the “National Plan.”
The Veto Loss
State governments are the first responders to climate disasters. Yet, under this Bill, they have no statutory power to reject a “National Priority” project (like a private nuclear plant) even if their local State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC) warns of high ecological vulnerability in that specific zone.
Fiscal Coercion
State Funds are largely dependent on central allocations. This ensures that states that “align” with central corporate energy goals get funded, while those that prioritize local environmental safety might face “fiscal cooling.”
The Missing Pieces: What the Bill Ignores
For the Climate Change Bill to be an “Eye Opener,” it must address the following:
-
Mandatory Social Audits: “Climate Change Duties” must include a mandatory, independent Social Impact Assessment that cannot be waived by the Central Government.
-
Harmonized Liability: The Bill must explicitly state that “Climate Adaptation Duties” do not override or cap the “Absolute Liability” of industrial operators in the event of an accident.
-
Local Veto Power: Gram Sabhas and State Legislatures must have a “Climate Veto” over projects in high-vulnerability zones (Seismic Zone VI or fragile coastlines).
-
Climate Justice for Labor: The Bill is silent on the “Just Transition” for contract laborers who will be the frontline victims of both climate heat and radiation leaks in private plants.
Conclusion
As to what past events, disasters of the day and our ongoing initiatives tell us, warn us: the collision of the SHANTI Bill’s corporate immunities and the Climate Change Bill’s vague “duties” tells us that we are building a legal fortress where the walls protect the shareholders while the windows remain open to the storm, warning us that “clean energy” is a hollow promise if it comes at the cost of public accountability.
Our ongoing initiatives tell us we are mapping a 2070 Net-Zero future, but the 13 charred victims in Mathura and the silent “Climate Duty” loopholes warn us that a nation which prioritises capital over its most vulnerable citizens is not adapting to the future — it is merely insuring its own ruin.
Key features of the Climate Change Bill together with our concerns are summarised in the Table below for a quick recap.
| Key Provision | Legal Detail (Climate Bill) | The “Grey Area” & Overlooked Risks |
| Statutory Duties | Mandates “Climate Change Duties” for all public and private entities. | Vague Enforcement:
The Bill is silent on criminal penalties for failing these “duties.” It reads like a “Paper Shield” for compliance. |
| “Act of God” 2.0 | Defines disasters as responses to “Climatic Stimuli.” | The Loophole:
Corporations can blame accidents (like a chemical leak) on a “supercharged storm” rather than their own poor engineering. |
| The NCCA Authority | Apex body chaired by the PM to monitor Net-Zero and adaptation. | Regulatory Capture:
Since the NCCA and the DAE (Nuclear) both report to the PMO, there is no truly independent oversight. |
| Exemptions Clause | Centre can exempt any project from climate oversight for “National Interest.” | Backdoor for Polluters:
Nuclear plants, labeled as “Clean Energy,” could be exempted from rigorous environmental impact audits. |
| State Rights | Centralizes authority; State Climate Funds are largely central-controlled. | Federal Deficit:
States must handle the disaster on the ground but have no statutory power to veto a risky project in their territory. |
| Research Mandate | Established a “Research Institute on Climate Change.” | Conflict of Interest:
Will the institute be free to report that a “Priority Project” (like a mega-dam) is ecologically suicidal? |
Leave a Reply