In an unprecedented manner, on February 6th during the 2025 budget presentation, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman stated that for the upcoming Nuclear Mission, the government is planning to amend India’s two crucial nuclear energy acts – the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act of 2010.
To quote from the budget presentation, “61. Development of at least 100 GW of nuclear energy by 2047 is essential for our energy transition efforts. For an active partnership with the private sector towards this goal, amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act will be taken up. 62. A Nuclear Energy Mission for research & development of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) with an outlay of 20,000 crore will be set up. At least 5 indigenously developed SMRs will be operationalized by 2033” – under the headline Nuclear Energy Mission for Viksit Bharat.
Notably, during the latest visit to the US, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the US President Donald Trump issued a joint statement on the existing nuclear deal between the two countries, where amendments to these acts were clearly mentioned.
“The leaders announced their commitment to fully realize the U.S.-India 123 Civil Nuclear Agreement by moving forward with plans to work together to build U.S.-designed nuclear reactors in India through large scale localization and possible technology transfer. Both sides welcomed the recent Budget announcement by Government of India to take up amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) for nuclear reactors, and further decided to establish bilateral arrangements in accordance with CLNDA, that would address the issue of civil liability and facilitate the collaboration of Indian and U.S. industry in the production and deployment of nuclear reactors. This path forward will unlock plans to build large U.S.-designed reactors and enable collaboration to develop, deploy and scale up nuclear power generation with advanced small modular reactors,” the statement reads.
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act ensures that the private party (supplier) who establishes a nuclear reactor in India is liable for any damages that can happen in a nuclear power plant. The supplier will be held accountable for the damage caused, and compensation for the losses is a people’s right under this act.
Amending this act can lead to privatization of the nuclear energy sector, says environment lawyer M. Vetri Selvan, who practices at the Madras High Court and also works with the Chennai-based volunteer environmental organization ‘Poovulagin Nanbargal’. Advocate M. Vetriselvan has been a litigant in multiple environmental law violations in Tamil Nadu.
In this interview, originally published in Keraleeyam Masika, Adv. Vetriselvan also talks about the fallouts in handling the nuclear waste from the Koodankulam nuclear power plant and about the amendments to environmental laws in India and their politics.
Mrudula Bhavani: Now we are getting to know that the government is planning to amend the law that keeps liability over big foreign industrialists. This was announced in a budget session, which is unusual. Being an environmental lawyer, what do you think about this move?
Advocate M Vetriselvan: In the budget, there was an announcement regarding the nuclear energy mission. It was mentioned by the finance minister that to initiate the nuclear mission, you need private partnership. To ensure private partnership, there will be amendments to the Atomic Energy Act (1962) and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act. These statements were made in the budget speech. After the budget speech, the Public Information Bureau released a document about the nuclear energy mission. In the mission, they clearly stated that private partnership will be allowed in nuclear energy. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited is the body that runs the power plants under the Department of Atomic Energy. NPCIL has also allowed private bodies like L&T and TATA, who can play a role in nuclear energy—including building equipment for the reactors and nuclear plants. Only that much is allowed to be done by the private party. As far as the production of nuclear energy and handling of nuclear risk is concerned, it is a hundred percent government-owned body, as mandated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1965, which clearly states that anything connected to radioactive material or radioactive energy can be carried out only by the central government, central government agencies, or central government organizations.
The 2010 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act came into effect during Dr. Manmohan Singh’s governance when India and the USA entered into a nuclear deal—a time when there was huge opposition by the Left parties and others. The Manmohan Singh government guaranteed that we will make the supplier liable and have a special enactment. That is how the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act came into existence. To understand the importance of this Act, you have to connect it with the Bhopal incident. The Bhopal industrial accident happened in 1984. After the industrial accident, the government and the machinery didn’t have any clue about how to prosecute, how to make the company liable for their actions, or how to give compensation to the people. In 1986, we enacted the Environment Protection Act so that we could monitor industries. Thereafter, in 1991, there was a Public Liability Insurance Act under which powers were given to the people to fight for compensation and damages in case of any industrial accidents or other harms caused by environmental disasters.
During the 1970s, we had the first Pokhran nuclear test. For generating nuclear energy, we need uranium; for running the reactors, we need fuel. Unfortunately, we don’t have much uranium in India, so to import it from other countries, we need the support of the US, Russia, and others. We also need the support of other countries for building our own reactors. Because of the nuclear test in the 1970s in Pokhran, there were sanctions from the US; they forbade giving us reactors and uranium. After the second Pokhran nuclear test, again there were sanctions. When Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister, he wanted to ease business with the nuclear deal. He again had talks with the US government—they agreed, and he agreed to look at some of the sanctions on India’s nuclear industry. That is how the civil nuclear industry came to progress.
In terms of purpose, you can divide nuclear energy into two: strategic and civil. The civil nuclear purpose is for the production of energy, and the strategic purpose is for military purposes. For example, in Tamil Nadu, the Koodankulam nuclear power plant comes under the civil category. Madras Atomic Power Station in Kalpakkam comes under the strategic purpose. Agreements with France, Canada, or Russia are for the civilian use of nuclear energy, purely for electricity purposes. These countries are ready to sell their reactors to India. In 2008, India and the USA agreed on nuclear energy. Faced with opposition to the nuclear agreement, mainly from the Left parties, there was a push to ensure the protection of people. That is how the 2010 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act was enacted—to ensure accountability for nuclear damages. If any accidents happen because of the reactor, then the people must have the right to claim compensation for the damages. The Act also talks about who is liable, and how much they are liable. When there is any nuclear incident, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board will notify, and then losses can be claimed from the operator. At present, the operator is the central government, and it is liable for giving compensation. The limitation for compensation is also defined under the Act. Compensation will be fixed under that, and there is also a cap on it. The maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident shall be rupees equivalent to three hundred million dollars. The government can increase it. There is an important section under this Act—Section 17—which says that the operator has a right to recourse. When India is getting a reactor from France or America, both countries must enter into an agreement with a mandated provision that gives liability to the supplier. The Act says that when you are purchasing any reactor, for example from France, then you have to make a contract with them: in case any accident happens because of a defect in their product, then they are liable. That is the supplier’s liability under this Act. Because of this enactment, after 2010, there was not even a single contract signed, because the nuclear suppliers were not ready to undertake liability. The last one was the Koodankulam nuclear plant. Koodankulam was not covered under this Act because the contract was signed in the 1990s and was evaluated later. It was before the enactment of this Act, so Koodankulam doesn’t fall under the Civil Liability Act. After Koodankulam, there hasn’t been any new agreement for reactors in India. Even though talks were happening with France regarding establishing nuclear plants in Jaitapur and Kovvada, they didn’t materialize because of the hurdle under this Act.
Now India has announced that we will amend this provision. Our assumption is that under the Atomic Energy Act, they will amend it in a way that will allow private parties even to run the reactor. If the supplier’s liability is the only issue, then they should have mentioned that they will amend the Liability Act. But they have also mentioned amending the Atomic Energy Act. Under the Atomic Energy Act, there is no other provision except the one stating that ownership will be controlled by the central government. If they are saying that they will amend the Atomic Energy Act, then it will be to include a provision that allows private partnership. Privatisation of nuclear energy is going to happen. Another piece of evidence for my statement is an interview that was published in the Indian Express (on 18th February 2025) by a former foreign secretary and US ambassador to India, Harsh Vardhan Singla, where he says that there is a commitment in the joint statement to amend that Act and make it suitable for foreign investors. He is talking in regard to nuclear liability and the Indo-US nuclear deal. India has given a promise here that they will amend the Liability Act so that the supplier’s liability will be removed. Now they will provide the reactor; whatever happens, we are liable—they will not take any responsibility.
Mrudula: What was the context in which the Atomic Energy Act was formed?
Vetriselvan: India’s Atomic Energy Commission was formed in 1948. The Department of Atomic Energy directly came under the PMO. They are not even answerable to the Parliament. This Act, enacted in 1965, gives complete control over nuclear energy to the central government. The main portion of the Act is complete control over radioactive substances and radioactive energy, activities, and waste. Under the Act, you have the Radioactive Waste Management Rules and the Radioactive Atomic Minerals Rules. This is the backbone on which the 1962 Act was enacted. You have many rules, such as Atomic Energy Mines and Minerals Handling Rules, Atomic Energy Radioactive Waste Rules, and the Atomic Energy Radiation Protection Rules from 2004. Under this rule, clearance is given to nuclear power plants. This is the background of the 1962 Act. Around last year, there was an amendment in the atomic rules where they took out some of the radioactive materials from the list of atomic minerals and shifted them to critical minerals under the Mines and Minerals Act. There are some minerals which come under the category of atomic minerals under a specialised rule, which will also be controlled by the Indian Rare Earths Limited company, which is also a central government body. They have the power to mine monazite, which is a radioactive material. Monazite has been taken out of the Atomic Minerals Rule and shifted to a new category of schedule called ‘critical minerals’, and it has been added under the Mines and Minerals Act. Now, some private parties are given a licence for mining. Already, some level of privatisation is allowed in the atomic regime. Big sand mining is happening in the coastal region of Tamil Nadu, where you have monazite, thorium, etc.
Mrudula: Why do you think India since independence hasn’t kept a distance from such a dangerous means of energy production? Was it for the military purpose you mentioned—India entered into the nuclear deal with the US? What was the compulsion? What do you think it was about?
Vetriselvan: The commercial interest is the main aspect. Their mission says that around 2047 about 100 gigawatts of energy-producing nuclear power plants will be established. That is the ambition, the goal they have. It is highly impossible. Now the mission also talks about small modular reactors. That means you will have a reactor that produces 100 megawatts or 150 megawatts. They want to establish small reactors throughout the country. If they are going to produce 100 gigawatts of nuclear energy throughout the country, then you will have more reactors, more nuclear waste. Already we have a huge stock of nuclear waste and we don’t know what to do. In 2013, there was a judgment from the Supreme Court which said that all the waste must be properly handled and there must be a deep geological repository that will keep the spent nuclear fuel, which should be established within five years. Until now, that place has not been identified. Already, nuclear waste is a huge problem and we don’t know what to do with it. In G. Sundararajan vs. Union of India, a case we filed in relation to the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, which went up to the Supreme Court, the direction was given for the establishment of a DGR. India wants the commercialisation of nuclear power. To tackle the adverse impact of climate change, we need more sources of energy. They call nuclear energy ‘clean energy’… But this is not clean energy. In the guise of tackling climate change, they say that, but in the geopolitical scenario, you want to please the US, you want to please the Europeans. So they are getting into agreements saying that okay, we will buy some reactors—it is mainly a geopolitical issue and the commercial interests they have.
Mrudula: You mentioned a case in the light of Koodankulam nuclear plant’s experience. Can you explain a bit about it?
Vetriselvan: Koodankulam is a coastal village, it is very near to the seashore, it is also very near to Kanyakumari. In 2011, there were huge protests against the establishment of the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in the Tirunelveli district. We filed many public interest litigations before the Madras High Court. When the Madras High Court dismissed our petitions, we made an appeal to the Supreme Court. There were two to three appeals that were disposed of in the year 2013. That gave fifteen directions. The directions include that the Koodankulam power plant can only be established after getting necessary clearance from the proper authority. The second direction is that the safety of the reactors and other equipment must be ensured by the proper authority and it is a continuous process. In the following directions, they are talking about the spent nuclear fuel. There was a huge cry over and arguments regarding the spent nuclear fuel. When the original agreement was signed, Russia agreed to take back the spent nuclear fuel—the waste arising out of the reactor, consisting of plutonium and uranium which is very highly radioactive. The original agreement was that they will take back the spent nuclear fuel. That was in the year 1988. After the Soviet Union dissolved, Rajiv Gandhi died, many things happened. It was again revalidated in the late 1990s. Thereafter, the Russians refused to take back the nuclear waste. Now it has become a burden for the Indian government. The Supreme Court said that you can’t keep the spent nuclear fuel inside the Koodankulam power plant area. You have to shift it to a permanent place—a deep geological repository, which means you have to dig a very long underground tunnel and place it there. That is the direction given by the Supreme Court. That is the only solution they have, a very harmful one, and that is why we are opposing nuclear energy. It is more dangerous to keep the nuclear waste along with the reactor. That is what happened in Fukushima. Already, we are having two reactors here and you are building four more reactors. If you are going to keep the waste also there, imagine when dangers happen—what are the consequences? That is why we are saying, at least you take the waste from there and please keep it somewhere else. No state is ready to give space for the DGR. But they want nuclear energy—that is the irony. That is why in the Supreme Court, the NPCL has filed a petition saying they are not able to find a DGR. As an intermediate arrangement, we will establish the AFR. That means away from the reactor, for forty or sixty years we will dump the waste in the AFR facility and later we will shift it to the DGR. The Supreme Court is yet to decide on this matter. At present, they are building three AFRs in the Koodankulam nuclear facility. They will shift the spent nuclear fuel, which is in the swimming pool under the reactor, to the AFR. For the extension, they got environmental clearance from the year 2008. They got the CRZ clearance in 2012. We had filed a case against the CRZ clearance given to them and the case is pending at the Supreme Court. They are in the process of creating four reactors in the Koodankulam plant—Koodankulam 3, 4, 5, and 6 are in the construction mode. They may extend it up to eight. At present, they are in the mode of constructing six reactors.
Mrudula: Do you think the National Green Tribunal as a body is independent enough to act in this? Can they interfere?
Vetriselvan: They can interfere in regard to the environmental clearance, CRZ clearance and Pollution Control Board clearance. But unfortunately, when we challenged CRZ clearance given to unit numbers 3 to 6 before the NGT, the NGT said that in the previous case from 2013 the Supreme Court had dealt with all these factors, so we can’t go independently on this matter—we are unable to intervene. That is how they dismissed our matter. That is why we filed an appeal. We have filed the case in the Supreme Court only with regard to unit numbers one and two. We have challenged the CRZ clearance given to units three, four, five and six before the National Green Tribunal. Of course, there are some observations given in the Supreme Court judgment, but that was not an obiter dictum. They have recorded some facts, but that was not a final finding. But the NGT thought that we can’t interfere with the Supreme Court verdict’s aspect. That is how they interpret the judgment. NGT has little power over these. They can look into the matters with regard to the environmental aspects—regarding environmental clearance, Pollution Control Board clearance, what they are doing and all. They have control over these aspects, but I don’t think they are very proactive.
Mrudula: We are seeing the amendments being brought to the environmental laws in India, like what happened to the Environmental Impact Assessment Act. How do you look at how these laws are being threatened during the current regime?
Vetriselvan: When the BJP government came into power in 2014, after Narendra Modi took power as Prime Minister, in June they appointed a special committee under the chairmanship of T.S.R. Subrahmanian, a retired bureaucrat. He was given the mandate to analyze the existing environmental laws for contemporary issues. It was under his leadership that the New Education Policy was also formed. Within three months the committee gave a report that our green laws should be amended and changed in such a way that all the enactments must be clubbed together. He gave a recommendation stating that there must be a single-window clearance established, so that industries will be able to get clearance by filing a single application—they can get the Pollution Control Board clearance, environmental clearance, CRZ clearance, forest clearance. For ease of doing business, he wanted to dilute the environmental laws. That was the recommendation given. That recommendation was opposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, and this recommendation was thrown away. But whatever he had mentioned and recommended has now been implemented and made into many amendments. You have the EIA 2020, which is based on the T.S.R. Subrahmanian recommendation. Then forest conservation laws were amended, where the definition of forest itself was diluted. At present, last week, there was a new guideline that regulates how you have to give a consent order under the Water Act and Air Act—what are the powers, when you can refuse, where you can establish the red category industries.
The green laws have been completely diluted over a long period of time—each and every green law. Environmental Protection Act, Water Act, Air Act, Biological Diversity Act, Forest Conservation Act—all these acts have been diluted. Environmental crimes have been decriminalized. Now many of the penal provisions have been taken away. Only a fine is enough.
The BJP has two policies. They have the idea of bringing in cultural nationalism, and the other is neo-liberalising the economy. Under the National Monetization Pipeline, they have the agenda of selling our public undertakings. Another agenda is the commercialization of the entire natural resources. To enforce that, they necessarily have to amend the green laws—they keep on amending. The Mines and Minerals Act has been amended so that the minerals can be privatized. Forest Conservation Act can be amended so that it can take over the natural resources from the forest without getting approval from the village panchayat or the community. The Water Act and the Air Act have been amended so that any red category industries can be established in any ecosystem that is a sensitive zone. The Environmental Protection Act has been amended so that the people’s consultation process will be excluded from many of the activities.
Mrudula: Do you think India currently has the potential to oppose these legislations and amendments?
Vetriselvan: We are still a vibrant democracy, and people’s movements are still there. When EIA 2020 was introduced, there was much opposition. Because of the opposition, they withdrew.
By March 26 this year, the US Department of Energy granted regulatory clearance allowing US firms to establish nuclear reactors in India. This move followed Holtec International’s application concerning a regulation in the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The clearance permits Holtec to transfer unclassified small modular reactor technology to three firms in India, Indian Express reports. On April 2, 2025, Union Minister of State for Science and Technology Jitendra Singh stated in the Lok Sabha that the government has constituted committees to discuss amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act. Officials from the Department of Atomic Energy, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, NITI Aayog, and the Ministry of Law and Justice are included in the committees.
