Challenge to provisions of the SHANTI Act, 2025

Case Description

For over six decades, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 governed India’s nuclear energy programme and reserved nuclear energy operations to the public sector. In 2010, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLND) was enacted to provide a no-fault, civil liability regime to ensure prompt compensation in cases of nuclear incidents. It imposed liability on the operator and, under Section 17, provided the operator a right of recourse against the supplier in specified circumstances, including where the nuclear incident resulted from defective equipment or material or sub-standard services. 

Both the Atomic Energy Act and the CLND were repealed by the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (SHANTI Act) which was enacted on 20 December 2025. The new Act governs the development, use and regulation of nuclear energy while permitting private participation in nuclear activities. The petition, filed in February 2026, challenges Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 39, 44, 67, 81 and 87 of the Act.

The petitioners challenge the liability framework under the Act, which places liability on the operator subject to statutory ceilings and removes the operator’s right of recourse against suppliers. They contend that the Act’s failure to provide for joint and several liability of operators and suppliers violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 and the doctrine of absolute liability and polluter-pays principle.

The petitioners also challenge the independence and autonomy of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), contending that the mechanism for selection, appointment and removal of its Chairperson and Members creates an inherent conflict of interest. Section 39 is challenged on the grounds of Article 19(1)(a) and 21. By empowering the Union Government to prohibit publication of information and exempt nuclear power stations from the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioners contend that it imposes an unqualified bar, undermines transparency and frustrates legitimate public interest. The power of the Union to grant exemptions from licensing or liability where the risk is considered insignificant, the extinguishment of claims for nuclear damage after prescribed periods, the bar on the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and the Act’s overriding effect are under challenge as well.

The petitioners further contend that expansion of nuclear activity should not proceed without a robust, scientific Deep Geological Repository for the long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuels. They rely on the doctrine of public trust, principles of inter-generational equity, sustainable development and precautionary principle. The petition seeks, among other reliefs, setting aside of the impugned provisions, joint and several liability of operators and suppliers, an independent mechanism for the selection, appointment and removal of AERB members, and directions for establishing a Deep Geological Repository and an independent regulatory framework.

On 17 August, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the respondents for the limited purpose of clarifying whether, irrespective of the SHANTI Act, anything would preclude a Constitutional Court from determining the amount of fair and just compensation in case of a nuclear accident. The Court also directed that Section 17(4) be suitably clarified in this regard.