Examine the trade-off between liability certainty for private investment and victim compensation adequacy in India's nuclear energy framework.

India's nuclear liability regime was recast by the SHANTI Act, 2025, which repealed the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010 [2]. Capping operator liability makes nuclear risk insurable and investable; whether that cap leaves victims adequately compensated is now before the Supreme Court [4].

The case for liability certainty

• The Act replaces the CLND's flat ceiling with a graded liability structure, varying with the type and capacity of the installation [1]; the earlier regime capped operator liability at ₹1,500 crore for reactors above 10 MW [3].
• Supplier liability — the CLND-era provision that deterred foreign and domestic vendors — has been removed, aligning India with international nuclear liability conventions [2].
• Bounded exposure allows insurance pooling and permits private entities to build, own and operate plants, essential for scaling low-carbon capacity [1].

Concerns about compensation adequacy

• Statutory ceilings are small against real disaster costs; Chernobyl and Fukushima ran into far larger sums, and the government's residual liability is itself capped at 300 million SDR [3], leaving a gap borne by victims.
• Diluted supplier liability weakens the deterrent incentive for safety in equipment design and manufacture.
• Petitioners before the Court argue such caps let operators externalise catastrophic risk [4].

Balancing safeguards

• Hearing the challenge in August 2026, a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant issued notice to the Union and AERB, observing that nothing precludes a constitutional court from determining fair and just compensation — the matter remains at notice stage [4].
• The Act's grant of statutory status to the AERB strengthens independent safety regulation, addressing risk at source rather than after damage [1].

The trade-off is therefore real but not irreconcilable: certainty attracts capital, while judicial review, a credible regulator and periodic upward revision of caps protect victims. A statutory review clause indexing liability limits, coupled with a strengthened insurance pool, would reconcile investment confidence with the constitutional promise of remedy under Article 21.