The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 has been both a protection for Indian citizens and a barrier to foreign investment. Analyse this tension in light of recent reforms.

Enacted in the shadow of Bhopal, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010 channels accident liability to the operator while uniquely preserving recourse against suppliers — a citizen safeguard that simultaneously became India's biggest nuclear investment bottleneck.

As a protection for citizens

• No-fault liability: victims claim compensation from the operator (NPCIL) without proving negligence, and liability is channelled to a single, identifiable payer [1].
• Section 17(b) grants the operator a right of recourse against a supplier for equipment with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services — a departure from global conventions that shield vendors, and a direct response to the Bhopal accountability failure [1].
• Dedicated machinery: Claims Commissioners and a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission enable time-bound settlement rather than protracted litigation [2].

As a barrier to foreign investment

• Supplier exposure was open-ended and difficult to insure, deterring vendors such as Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi for over a decade; Section 46 further left the possibility of parallel tort proceedings ambiguous [1].
• Capital-intensive reactor projects stalled, leaving installed nuclear capacity under 9 GW against the 100 GW-by-2047 roadmap [5].
• Fuel and technology sourcing stayed import-reliant, weakening India's bargaining position with overseas suppliers.

Recent reforms: rebalancing, not repeal

• The Indian Nuclear Insurance Pool (2015), led by GIC-Re with domestic insurers at ₹1,500 crore capacity, covers both operator liability and the supplier's right-of-recourse risk — capping exposure operationally without diluting the statute [3].
• The Nuclear Energy Mission (Budget 2025-26), with ₹20,000 crore for indigenous Small Modular Reactors, proposes amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the CLND Act to admit private and foreign participation [4].
• Confidence effects are already visible in the India-Canada Strategic Energy Partnership and the long-term uranium supply agreement concluded during the March 2026 leaders' summit [6].

The tension is therefore being resolved not by weakening victim rights but by making supplier risk quantifiable and insurable. Going forward, statutory clarity on the scope and time-limits of recourse, coupled with a strengthened AERB and transparent claims machinery, can align investor certainty with the constitutional guarantee of life under Article 21 — securing both energy sufficiency and public trust.