Ex-Civil Servants Move Supreme Court Challenging SHANTI Act Capping Nuclear Liability

The Supreme Court on Friday briefly heard a  Public Interest Litigation challenging several provisions of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, alleging that they violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi adjourned the matter for further consideration.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner submitted that the SHANTI Act replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Liability Act 2010, and a petition filed by Common Cause challenging the similar provisions of that law is also pending in the Court.

CJI said that it was a "sensitive issue." 

Explaining the crux of the matter, Bhushan said that the SHANTI Act permits even private companies to set up nuclear plants and exempted them from liability beyond Rs 3000 crores. He said that nuclear damage can cause damage in the range of tens of lakhs of crores. The Act goes against the absolute liability principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the Oleum gas leak case.

Bhushan said that the Act caps the liability of the Government to 4500 crores INR.

The bench said that the Act may have been created to boost the energy needs of the nation. Bhushan however said that this will lead to private players will make investments, diluting the safety standards as they can take insurance coverage for the maximum liability. "They will cut corners, becuase there is no incentive for them to provide for maximum safety," Bhushan said.

The CJI said the issue was between an actual, visible and tangible national interest versus an unfortunate hypothetical loss. Bhushan disagreed that it was hypothetical and cited the instances of Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.

The CJI then commented about India's lack of enough energy resources. "Coal we cannot allow, forest you cannot compromise, gas we do not have. Where we are going?" Bhushan said that the answer is solar energy. The cost of producing nuclear energy is four times the cost of producing solar energy, he stated.

Justice Bagchi said that for solar energy, we need lithium for which India will have to rely on China.

Bhushan then cited the case of Enron, which was producing power at an expensive rate, which ultimately led to the closure of the plant for last 15 years. "Unfortunately, a notion has gone in this country that the production of electricity in this country is low," Bhushan said.

The CJI said that the problem was that many states were giving power subsidies. 

Ultimately, the bench said that it will hear the matter on another day, after going through the matter in detail.

Details of the petition

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to strike down multiple provisions of the Act on the ground that they dilute nuclear liability safeguards, undermine regulatory independence and restrict transparency, thereby endangering public safety and environmental protection.

The petition has been filed by former Union Power and Finance Secretary E.A.S. Sarma, former Finance Secretary and Planning Commission Member S.P. Shukla, former CSIR Chief Scientist Prof. Dinesh Abrol, former CSIR-IICT Chief Scientist K. Babu Rao, physicist and trade union leader Dr. Vivek Monteiro, and International Centre for Theoretical Sciences physicist Prof. Suvrat Raju.

The petitioners contend that the SHANTI Act permits private and foreign entities to operate nuclear power plants while imposing liability caps that are "absurdly low" and exempting suppliers from responsibility. They argue that Sections 11, 13 and related provisions limit operator liability and cap the government's residual liability at 300 million Special Drawing Rights, which translates to roughly ₹3000 crore. According to the petition, such caps would leave victims of nuclear accidents unable to recover even a fraction of their losses.

The petition compares the statutory liability limits with the economic consequences of major nuclear disasters. It cites estimates placing the damage from the Chernobyl disaster between USD 235 billion and USD 700 billion and the Fukushima accident at approximately USD 400–445 billion. The liability limit under the SHANTI Act, the petition claims, amounts to less than 0.1% of the damage caused in those incidents.

It is further argued that the removal of the operator's right of recourse against suppliers, earlier recognised under Section 17(b) of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, incentivises manufacturers to compromise safety standards. The petition submits that this is particularly dangerous in a regime where operators may be profit-driven private or foreign companies.

Invoking the Constitution Bench decision in M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak), the petition contends that nuclear power plants fall within the category of hazardous industries attracting the doctrine of absolute liability. It argues that statutory caps on liability are inconsistent with settled environmental jurisprudence, including the principles of polluter pays, precautionary principle, sustainable development, inter-generational equity and public trust, which the Court has recognised as part of Article 21.

The petition also challenges provisions relating to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), contending that Sections 17 and 19 allow the Central Government to retain control over the appointment and removal of the regulator's chairperson and members, creating an institutional conflict of interest. It is argued that this violates India's obligations under the Convention on Nuclear Safety, which requires separation between regulatory functions and promotional activities in the nuclear sector.

Section 39 of the Act has been challenged for empowering the Central Government to exempt nuclear power stations from the operation of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petition contends that this provision imposes a blanket restriction on disclosure of information and violates the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a). It argues that communities living near nuclear facilities are entitled to information regarding plant safety, storage of spent nuclear fuel and emergency preparedness.

The petition also relies on the Supreme Court's decision in G. Sundarrajan v Union of India to argue that the country has yet to establish a fully operational Deep Geological Repository for spent nuclear fuel, despite judicial directions recognising the long-term environmental and health risks associated with nuclear waste.

Raising national security concerns, the petitioners submit that expanded private participation in the nuclear sector could increase risks of misuse or sabotage of nuclear materials. The petition cites the International Atomic Energy Agency's Incident and Trafficking Database, which has recorded over 4,000 incidents involving illicit or malicious use of radioactive material.

Apart from liability-related provisions, the petition challenges Sections 44, 67, 81 and 87 of the Act. It argues that the law grants sweeping exemption powers to the Central Government, extinguishes claims despite the latent nature of radiation injuries, restricts judicial remedies and excludes concurrent civil remedies available under the earlier nuclear liability regime.

The petition seeks a declaration that the impugned provisions are unconstitutional and contrary to established principles of environmental law and nuclear safety jurisprudence.

Case : EAS Sarma and others v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 240/2026