Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

42. India-U.S. issued an Inter U.S. Joint Statement at Washington on 18.7.2005 which has located the final broad policy so as to actually facilitate and also outline the broad contours of a legally binding agreement. Some of the policy frameworks relate to preventing WMD Proliferation, goals of prompting nuclear power and achieving nuclear energy, expeditious consideration of fuel steps for safeguarded nuclear reactors etc. Nuclear 2007 – an agreement for co-operation between India and U.S. concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy (2007 Co-operation Agreement) laid down certain binding obligations between the two countries. Though, India is not a party to any of the Liability Conventions, specifically, IAEA Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, India has enacted the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (Nuclear Liability Act) which aims to provide a civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a nuclear accident through No- Fault Liability to the operators.

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE:

78. Developing modern sources for energy through NPPs carry the problem of potential damage, which might flow from a nuclear catastrophe. Several Nuclear Energy Generating countries have adopted their own Legislation on the issue of Civil and Criminal Liability. The U.S. Price-Anderson Act, 1957, the German Atomic Energy Act (1959), the Swiss Federal Law on the Exploitation of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes and Protection from Radiation (1959) and the Japanese Law on the Compensation of Nuclear Damage (1961) are some of them. Few of such legislations followed the basic principle of imposing legal liability on a strict liability basis on the operator of a nuclear installation coupled with the limitation on liability.

79. Currently, there are two main conventions on third-party liability in the field of nuclear energy. The first is the Paris Convention of 1960, which was supplemented by the Brussels Supplementary Convention Act, 1963. IAEA’s Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 1963 is yet another convention. India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 or the Nuclear Liability Act mainly rests on the above Conventions, though India is not a signatory to those conventions. India’s Nuclear Liability Act aims to provide a civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to victims of a nuclear incident through a No Fault Liability to the operator, appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission, Nuclear Liability Fund and other matters connected therewith. The constitutional validity of the said Act is under challenge before this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 464 of 2011. Various prayers have been made in the above mentioned writ petition, but this Court issued the notice only with regard to the prayer clause no. (e), i.e. to declare the act as unconstitutional and void ab initio.

81. The India’s Nuclear Liability Act states that the liability of the operator to the tune of Rs.1500 crores and the maximum liability to rupee equivalent of 300 millions SDR’s, though the Act, speaks of no fault liability. It is unnecessary to examine the scope of various provisions contained in the Act, for our purpose, especially when the constitutional validity of the Act is under challenge.

82. We may, in this connection, point out that the constitutional validity of the Price-Anderson Act, 1957 of U.S. which was challenged in the year 1978 before the U.S. Supreme Court in Duke Power Company v. Carolina Environmental Study Group 438 US 59(1978). It was urged before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Act did not ensure adequate compensation for victims of accidents and it violated Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by treating the nuclear accidents differently from other accidents etc. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act holding that it was lawful, in that there was adequate justification for treating nuclear accidents different to other claims; that Act provides a reasonably just substitute for the common law or state tort law remedies it replaces and that it cannot be said that the Act encouraged irresponsibility in the matter of safety and environmental protection.