The SHANTI Bill 2025: A “Peace” Pact for Corporations, A Peril for the People?

The passage of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025, marks the most radical shift in India’s atomic history since 1962. By dismantling the state monopoly and inviting private giants into the “ultra-hazardous” domain of nuclear power, the government promises a 100 GW clean-energy future.

However, beneath the acronym “SHANTI” (Peace) lies a framework that many experts, activists, and citizens view as a strategic retreat from accountability.

This article dissects the grey areas of the Bill, the dilution of victim rights, and why this “peace” might be heavily weighted in favour of corporate balance sheets over public safety.

The “Supplier Shield”: Granting Immunity to Negligence

The most alarming feature of the SHANTI Bill is the total repeal of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010, specifically the “Right of Recourse” against suppliers.

The Dilution

Under the old law, if an accident occurred due to defective equipment or sub-standard services, the operator could sue the supplier. The SHANTI Bill effectively scraps supplier liability.

The Corporate Favour

This move is a direct nod to global vendors (from the US and France) who refused to enter India unless they were granted “legal peace” from accidents caused by their own faulty technology.

The Public Risk

If a private operator uses a defective valve or a sub-standard cooling pump that leads to a meltdown, the victims and the Indian taxpayer will bear the burden. The supplier, having pocketed the profit, walks away with statutory immunity.

Capping the Price of Life: The “Polluter Pays” Principle in Peril

The Bill introduces a graded liability cap linked to reactor size rather than the potential for damage.

The Math of Injustice

For a large reactor, the operator’s liability is capped at ₹3,000 crore. For Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), it could be as low as ₹100 crore.

The Reality Check

A nuclear disaster doesn’t distinguish between a small or large plant once radiation leaks into the groundwater. For comparison, the Fukushima disaster cost Japan over $200 billion. India’s cap is a mere fraction of what a real clean-up requires.

The Taxpayer Burden

The Bill specifies that if damages exceed the operator’s cap, the Central Government (the taxpayer)will pay the rest. Essentially, the private corporation takes the profit, while the public “insures” the catastrophe.

The “State Silence” Clause: Stripping Local Rights

In a diverse federation like India, the Bill centralizes power to an unprecedented degree.

No Right to Complain

The Bill restricts the right to lodge complaints or seek judicial remedies. In many cases, only the Central Government—the very entity that granted the license—has the standing to initiate certain safety-related legal actions.

Overriding States

State governments, despite being the primary responders during a disaster, have no statutory veto or oversight role in the licensing process. This creates a “democratic deficit” where a plant can be forced upon a community by a distant central authority and a private partner.

Trafficking and the Shadow of Insecurity

By allowing private players to handle fuel fabrication, transportation, and storage, the Bill opens new vectors for the “trafficking of hazardous materials.”

The Private Security Gap

While core strategic materials remain under state control, the sheer volume of “prescribed substances” being moved by private contractors increases the risk of theft, loss, or sabotage.

Lessons from History

Global history is littered with “orphaned” radioactive sources. In a country with India’s density and administrative complexities, a single “lost” consignment in the hands of a profit-motivated private sub-contractor could lead to a “Dirty Bomb” scenario or localized radiation poisoning.

Global Warning: Examples of Private Sector Failures

Three Mile Island (USA, 1979)

A combination of equipment failure and human error at a privately operated plant led to a partial meltdown. It took 14 years and $1 billion to clean up, largely funded by rate-payers and public funds.

The Bhopal Precedent (India, 1984)

While not nuclear, the Union Carbide disaster proves that corporate entities will use every legal loophole to avoid paying the true cost of their negligence. The SHANTI Bill seems to provide those loopholes in advance.

The “Safety Amendment”: How to Reclaim the SHANTI Bill

To turn this Bill from a corporate gift into a public safeguard, the following amendments are non-negotiable:

Restore the Right of Recourse

Suppliers must be held liable for patent or latent defects in equipment. No “peace” should be granted for negligence.

Remove the Liability Cap

Liability should be unlimited and absolute, as per the Supreme Court’s own “Absolute Liability” doctrine established in the M.C. Mehta case. Corporations must have “skin in the game.”

Statutory Federalism

State governments must be made “Co-Licensing Authorities,” with a mandatory “Social and Environmental Audit” conducted by a third party before any private license is granted.

Independent Regulator

While the Bill grants statutory status to the AERB, it must be made entirely independent of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and report directly to a multi-party Parliamentary Committee, not the Prime Minister’s Office.

Victim-Centric Redressal

A “National Nuclear Insurance Pool” should be funded exclusively by a levy on private operator profits, ensuring that the state never has to dip into the taxpayer’s pocket for corporate accidents.

Conclusion

As to what past events, disasters of the day and our ongoing initiatives tell us, warn us: the passage of the SHANTI Bill tells us that the global hunger for capital has finally breached the gates of India’s most sensitive energy sector, warning us that when profit enters the atomic core, safety often becomes a secondary line-item. Our ongoing initiatives tell us we are ready for a 100 GW future, but the historical shadows of Bhopal and Fukushima warn us that a law which shields the powerful and caps the value of the victim is not a pact for “peace,” but a blueprint for a disaster waiting to happen.

Main provisions of the SHANTI Bill and our concerns are summarised in the Table below for a quick  recap.

Key Provision	Legal Detail (SHANTI Bill)	The “Grey Area” & Public Concern
Private Entry	Allows private Indian companies to build, own, and operate reactors.	Corporate Secrecy: Private entities may prioritize profit over safety, using “trade secrets” to hide safety lapses from the public.
Supplier Liability	REPEALED: Operators can no longer sue suppliers for defective equipment/parts.	Negligence Pass: Global vendors (US/France) are shielded even if their faulty tech causes a meltdown. The public loses the “Right of Recourse.”
Liability Cap	Graded from ₹100 Cr (SMRs) to ₹3,000 Cr (Large) based on plant size.	Under-insured Catastrophe: Real-world cleanup (like Fukushima) costs trillions. The cap is a “financial shield” for the big corporates.
Taxpayer Burden	Any damage exceeding the operator’s cap is paid by the Central Government.	Nationalizing Risk: Corporations take the profit; the common man pays for the disaster via taxes.
Judicial Access	Bars Civil Courts: All disputes go to a specialized Nuclear Tribunal or Redressal Council.	Silencing Victims: Local communities cannot go to their local courts to stop a project or demand justice; they must face high-power tribunals.
Material Control	Private firms allowed to transport and store nuclear/spent fuel.	Security Threat: Increases the risk of hazardous material trafficking or “lost” waste in the hands of private contractors.