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.

Q. 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. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

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.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 — India Code — operator channelling, no-fault liability, Section 17(b) right of recourse, Section 46 2. DAE, FAQs on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 — Claims Commissioner and Nuclear Damage Claims Commission machinery 3. PIB, "Launching of Nuclear Insurance Pool" (2015) — ₹1,500 crore GIC-Re-led pool covering operator and supplier recourse risk 4. PIB/DAE, "Nuclear Power in Union Budget 2025-26" — Nuclear Energy Mission, ₹20,000 crore SMR outlay, proposed amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and CLND Act 5. Central Electricity Authority, Roadmap for 100 GW Nuclear Capacity by 2047 (2025) — current installed nuclear capacity and the 2047 target 6. India-Canada Joint Leaders' Statement, 2 March 2026 — PMO India — Strategic Energy Partnership and long-term uranium supply arrangement