Introduction

India’s dual challenge of ensuring energy security and meeting climate change commitments has brought nuclear energy policy back into the spotlight. The government’s renewed effort to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962, seeks to revise the legal framework governing nuclear liability and to enable private participation in the nuclear sector. These proposals, however, come with significant political and strategic implications, testing the Opposition''s unity and raising critical questions about accountability, safety, and national interest.

Historical Evolution of Nuclear Liability in India

·       India’s journey toward nuclear liability legislation has been shaped by its decision to remain outside global nuclear conventions. Instead, it opted to create a domestic legal framework for compensation in the event of a nuclear accident. This led to the enactment of the CLNDA in 2010, heavily influenced by global industrial disasters such as the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster.

·       Public concern over corporate accountability was high at the time. The then Opposition, particularly the BJP and the Left parties, insisted on extending liability to equipment suppliers, not just plant operators. While this stance addressed public safety concerns, it ultimately discouraged foreign suppliers from engaging with the Indian market, rendering the Act practically ineffective. Subsequent efforts to reform the legislation failed to yield progress, with global suppliers maintaining a cautious distance due to India’s stringent liability norms.

Political Dynamics and the Current Debate

·       Nuclear liability has long been politically sensitive. Back in 2007, the UPA government considered opening the sector to private entities, following the Dr. Raja Ramanna Committee’s recommendations. However, political resistance—rooted in concerns about sovereignty, safety, and foreign control—stalled reform.

·       Today, the BJP-led NDA government is taking up the issue once more, aiming to amend the CLNDA and AEA to reassure suppliers and draw private investment into nuclear energy. The Congress has pushed back, accusing the government of diluting accountability, compromising public safety, and privileging the commercial interests of countries like France and the United States over Indian citizens. These criticisms are reminiscent of the earlier political storm when the original CLNDA was introduced ahead of U.S. President Obama’s 2010 visit, a move critics claimed was geopolitically motivated. Then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh defended the law as a necessary framework for India’s nuclear future.

India’s Nuclear Energy Landscape and Strategic Vision

·       Despite India’s long-standing ambitions, the nuclear sector remains a minor contributor to the national energy mix, accounting for roughly 3% of power generation. As of late 2023, 24 operational nuclear plants provide about 8.8 GW of capacity, far short of earlier goals. The government now aims to raise this figure to 22.48 GW by 2031-32 and achieve an ambitious 100 GW by 2047.

·       Such expansion depends significantly on resolving liability concerns to attract international collaboration and financial investment. It also requires integrating new technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), which offer increased safety and flexibility. Yet these innovations also bring new challenges related to nuclear waste disposal, regulatory oversight, and public trust—challenges that must be addressed with transparency and rigor.

Opposition''s Role, Precedents, and Policy Continuity

·       How the Opposition responds to these proposals will be crucial. Indian political history is replete with instances of parties opposing reforms only to adopt them once in power. Legislative shifts on the Patents Act, FDI in insurance, and the Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh all saw initial resistance followed by eventual bipartisan consensus.

·       A similar evolution may occur with nuclear law reform. The Opposition, particularly the Congress, must carefully weigh the risks of loosening supplier liability against the imperatives of clean energy expansion. Rather than framing the debate as another partisan clash, the focus must shift to long-term strategic concerns: How can India ensure supplier accountability without scaring off investment? What safeguards are essential for private-sector participation? And where does nuclear energy fit within India’s broader transition to renewables?

Building a Forward-Looking Nuclear Policy

·       While the current government may not need the Opposition’s votes due to its parliamentary majority, an inclusive, reasoned debate is essential to the legitimacy and sustainability of any new policy. The implications go far beyond nuclear law; they touch on India’s climate objectives, its global energy positioning, and its capacity for technological innovation.

·       A parliamentarian once cautioned against political role reversals leading to policy reversals. The current moment calls for both government and Opposition to rise above historical hostilities and construct a shared framework for nuclear development—one that is forward-looking, scientifically robust, and uncompromising on safety.

Conclusion

·       The proposed amendments to India’s nuclear legislation bring into sharp focus the enduring tension between corporate accountability and investment-facilitating reform. While it is crucial not to undermine the importance of liability in protecting public interest, a balanced and pragmatic legal framework is essential if India is to realise its energy goals and climate commitments.

·       Achieving this balance will require bipartisan cooperation, an honest assessment of the risks and opportunities, and a commitment to public safety and national interest above political calculations. Only through such a comprehensive and mature approach can India craft a nuclear policy that meets the demands of the future without compromising the lessons of the past.