❈ ❈ ❈
People’s Commission Expresses Deep Concern Over India’s Emerging Nuclear Strategy
Peoples’ Commission on Public Sector and Public Services (PCPSPS)
The Peoples’ Commission on Public Sector and Public Services (PCPSPS) has issued a detailed statement voicing serious concerns over a set of recent policy moves by the Indian government that it believes threaten to reverse decades of progress toward self-reliance in the nuclear sector. These developments, according to the Commission, not only expose the country to greater financial and safety risks but also compromise its long-term strategic autonomy in the field of atomic energy.
In a public statement, PCPSPS, consisting of academics, jurists, erstwhile administrators, trade unionists and social activists, highlighted the potential risks around a nuclear power plant, up to the range of 80km around it, while noting that in recent times the “Centre has rushed into announcing the setting up of a nuclear power plants at numerous locations, including Anakapalle in AP, Kasargod district in Kerala and in Goa.
Full Statement
People’s Commission Expresses Deep Concern Over India’s Emerging Nuclear Strategy
Date: 02.06.2025
Peoples Commission expresses concerns at the following recent developments which are likely to pose a serious setback to India’s quest for self-reliance in the field of nuclear energy.
- In her latest Budget Speech, the Finance Minister’s had indicated that India would consider amending the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) for promoting domestic and foreign investments in the field of nuclear energy.
- The NDA government proposes not only to continue its predecessor’s imprudent policy of setting up nuclear power plants based on imported reactors and imported fuel but also steeply increasing India’s reliance on imported reactors by planning to add 100GW of nuclear power capacity based on such a strategy
- The Central government is reported to be considering a proposal to permit 49% FDI in nuclear power plants.
- In August 2023, the Centre permitted private mining of beach sands through an amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act (MMDRA), opening the floodgates to export of strategic atomic minerals such as Titanium and Thorium-rich Monazite at the cost of compromising the long-term three-stage nuclear development strategy envisioned by Dr Homi J Bhabha, the architect of India’s nuclear establishment.
CLNDA: The intent of CLDNA is to apportion liability for an accident at a nuclear power plant between NPCIL, the operator of nuclear power plants and the reactor suppliers. In such an arrangement, NPCIL should have the right to recourse for liability against rector suppliers for accidents arising from (i) defects in the design of their reactors, (ii) sub-standard materials used in their reactors, or (iii) gross negligence on the part of reactor manufacturers in ensuring the required quality of the material, equipment or services provided for operating the reactor, whereas the then UPA government under external pressure, proposed to provide an escape route to reactor suppliers through Clause 17(b) so as to exempt them from such liability. Though the Parliamentary Standing Committee at that time suggested plugging the loophole and the BJP in opposition adopted a firm stand on it, the version proposed by the UPA survived. The western MNCs who supply reactors to India have been demanding further dilution of the Act to benefit them at the cost of the Indian tax payer and what the DAE is planning to do now, as announced by the FM in her Budget speech, would amount to surrendering national interest to subserve the commercial interests of those MNCs.
Any dilution of accident liability as cited above would indirectly incentivise the reactor manufacturer to cut corners in designing reactors for safety and, considering that accident liability arising from a serious Fukushima-like disaster running into trillions of dollars, any such exemption could cripple India’s finances. It is noteworthy that nuclear power plants in India are subject to regulation by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) which in itself is subordinate to the DAE whose facilities it is expected to regulate. Post-Fukushima, the DAE proposed a Bill to create a more independent regulatory authority but it never saw the light of the day. In the existing environment of regulation of the operation of nuclear power plants, it would be all the more risk- prone to permit large nuclear power complexes based on multiple imported reactors to operate.
We therefore feel that the existing CLNDA needs to be strengthened as proposed by the then Parliamentary Standing Committee, rather than diluting it further. India should uphold the national interest by resisting external pressures in that respect.
The US President issued an Executive Order on May 23, 2025 that the federal government would give a boost to US nuclear reactor exports to other countries and for that purpose step up diplomatic pressure on reactor-importing countries. We feel that India should tread cautiously in this respect and ensure that, instead of meekly yielding to US pressure, it resists it in order to uphold the national interest in every respect 100 GW nuclear power capacity based largely on imported nuclear reactors and imported Uranium fuel:Apart from the fact that such vast expansion of nuclear power generation capacity based largely on imported reactors will imply a sharp deviation from the long-term strategy envisioned by Dr Bhabha, a wide range of reactors of different makes and technological features will render their maintenance costly. Electricity generated from imported Uranium will be expensive as imported Uranium is subject to the vagaries of the global Uranium market and also to the value of the Indian rupee in the foreign exchange market. India’s bilateral nuclear deals do not permit transparent, competitive discovery of the price of either the reactors or the fuel. Once such plants come into operation, the State power utilities will have no option to exercise their right to buy electricity in merit order, as they are mandated to absorb nuclear electricity at any cost.
In recent times, we find that the Centre has rushed into announcing the setting up of a nuclear power plants at numerous locations across the country, including Anakapalle in AP, Kasargod district in Kerala and in Goa. Keeping the safety concerns in view, it is now recognised globally that there could be potential risks around a nuclear power plant upto a range of 80 km around it.
As far as India is concerned, the regulatory authority, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has notified the following zones from the risk point of view.
| Zone | Distance from the site |
| Exclusion Zone (where no habitations are permitted) | 1 km |
| Natural Growth Zone (Where no development activity should be taken up that is likely to increase the density of population) | 5 km |
| Emergency Planning Zone (where the local authorities should be ready and equipped to evacuate people in the event of occurrence of a nuclear accident) | 16 km |
| Radiological Surveillance Zone (where radioactivity levels will be monitored regularly to prevent adverse health impacts) | 30 km |
In other words, while globally, it has been recognised that toxic radiation effect around a nuclear power plant can extend up to 80km, even according to NPCIL’s own norms, it will extend up to 30km around the plant, necessitating close radiological monitoring. When a Fukushima-like accident were to take place, a contingency that cannot be ruled out, it can be worse, as it would then necessitate large-scale evacuation of people. More than a decade after its occurrence, the clean up operation is still going on, with some estimates indicating that it could extend over decades, with the costs running into trillions of dollars. Neither the DAE nor the States have taken the people in confidence of this possibility.
With most nuclear power plant sites proposing to have multiple reactors, the cumulative impact of a nuclear disaster could be enormous, especially in a regulatory environment that is anything but independent and strong.
It is ironic that India should opt in favour of such expensive, risk-prone, imported nuclear electricity at the cost of promoting self-reliance in the field of nuclear energy, by reducing its reliance on indigenously available coal which India produces in large quantities. Coal mining and production are highly employment-intensive, whereas India importing nuclear reactors will result in employment benefits accruing to supplier countries, rather than in India.
We feel that it is highly imprudent for India to shift its emphasis from self-reliance in nuclear power to large-scale dependence on imported reactors MMDRA amendment to re-introduce private mining in beach sands: India’s beach sands, especially along the Odisha, AP, Tamil Nadu, Kerala coasts, contain several strategic atomic minerals including Titanium and Monazite, the raw material for Thorium, the fuel for the third stage of India’s nuclear power development programme. The Monazite deposits in India constitute a significant portion of the deposits available globally.
It was at the instance of Bhabha that India imposed a total ban on private mining of beach sands. Caving in to external pressures, the UPA govt opened up beach sand mining to private miners and relaxed regulations that allowed clandestine export of atomic minerals. Subsequently, as a sequel to court cases, the Union Ministry of Mines at the instance of the DAE imposed a total ban on private mining of beach sands in 2019. However, once again, yielding to external influence, the government abruptly amended the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act (MMDRA) in 2023, once again paving the way for clandestine export of Monazite, Titanium etc.
India has apparently not learnt lessons from past experience with mining of beach sands by domestic miners and instances of corruption in the case of overseas miners.
In our view, the government should revoke the above cited MMDRA amendment and work out a strategy to conserve atomic minerals for domestic use. Monazite, as envisioned by Dr Bhabha, should be exclusively used for extracting Thorium to fuel the third stage of our nuclear development programme. Those that were instrumental in clandestinely exporting atomic minerals need to be proceeded against.
FDI in nuclear power
The latest proposal mooted by the government seeks to permit domestic private companies to induct foreign investors as shareholders upto 49% of their equity capital. Such a large equity share would empower the investors to have a say in the way the domestic companies operate nuclear power plants, including in matters relating to the end-use of the by-products of used Uranium, which has strategic implications. We feel that the government should tread cautiously in the matter of permitting FDI in nuclear power
Conclusion:
We therefore demand that
- CNLDA should be strengthened as earlier proposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee rather than diluting it
- The DAE should reconsider its present strategy of large-scale shift in reliance from self-reliance to increasing dependence on imported nuclear reactors
- Amendment to MMDRA to permit private mining in beach sands should be revoked
- The government should not rush into permitting 49% FDI in nuclear power
- The DAE should not further delay processing a Bill for setting up an independent nuclear regulatory authority on the lines suggested by the then Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2012.
(Statement courtesy: Newsclick, an Indian news website founded by Prabir Purkayastha in 2009, who also serves as the Editor-in-Chief.)
❈ ❈ ❈
Do Not Hurt the National Interest by Amending Atomic Energy Act to Allow FDI in Nuclear Power and Amending CLNDA to Exempt Foreign Companies from Accident Liability
E.A.S. Sarma
To
Shri Narendra D Modi
Prime Minister
Dear Shri Modiji,
In my two letters of February 9, 2025 & April 19, 2025 addressed to you (ttps://countercurrents.org/2025/04/dilution-of-the-atomic-energy-act-will-hurt-the-national-interest/ & https://countercurrents.org/2025/02/proposed-dilution-of-suppliers-liability-under-the-civil-liability-for-nuclear-damage-act-2010-is-detrimental-to-the-safety-of-operation-of-imported-nuclear-reactors-against-the-national-interest/), I had cautioned your government not to yield to the pressure exerted by the US government and others to permit FDI in nuclear power by amending the Atomic Energy Act and dilute the the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) to exempt their nuclear supplier companies from accident liability arising from catastrophic accidents that might occur in the case of reactors supplied by them, due to factors attributable to (i) defects in reactor design, or (ii) the use of sub-standard material in reactor manufacture, or (iii) gross negligence of the supplier of material, equipment or services.
Evidently, unable to resist intense corporate pressure exerted by reactor supplier companies in the US and other western countries, consciously supported by their parent countries, the NDA government, throwing caution to the wind and compromising the national interest, has decided to go ahead with Bills to dilute both the Atomic Energy Act and the CLNDA, knowing well that its predecessor, UPA, had already weakened the CLDNA and the rules made under it. According to a statement made by the Minister in charge of atomic energy recently (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bills-to-amend-to-nuclear-energy-laws-may-be-introduced-in-monsoon-session-minister/article69709739.ece), the two Bills are going to be introduced in the coming Monsoon Session of the Parliament.
While the Finance Minister in her last Budget Speech had already indicated the NDA government’s willingness to dilute CLNDA and also amend the Atomic Energy Act to permit FDI in nuclear power with a view to accommodate the business interests of US reactor supplier companies like Westinghouse and General Electric, it is significant that more recently on May 23, 2025, the Trump administration made its intention far more explicit by issuing an Executive Order (https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-deploys-advanced-nuclear-reactor-technologies-for-national-security/) to mount diplomatic pressure on reactor importing countries like India. I hope that the undue haste in which the NDA has acted on the two undesirable legislative amendments is not prompted by the White House’s diktat.
Unfortunately, it was the UPA government that first caved in to US pressure and started the process of diluting CLNDA, which the BJP in opposition at that time, had vehemently opposed. In the “Tweedledee and Tweedledum” politics of India, no matter which party is in power, it seems to do nothing but promote corporate interests, including the business interests of foreign companies, rather than policies aimed at promoting public welfare.
In this connection, I invite your attention to a video recording (https://youtu.be/5dbT2Xl1pUY) of the exemplary stand taken on this subject by Shri Arun Jaitley, the then Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha on August 30, 2010. Shri Jaitley later explained BJP’sstand in more detail, in his article at BJP’s website (https://www.bjp.org/hi/pressreleases/article-shri-arun-jaitley-diluting-nuclear-suppliers-liability). I have extracted below some important arguments put forward by Shri Jaitley, as they continue to be relevant, assuming great importance in the present context.
“The exercise of the operators right of recourse could not be made dependent on an agreement in writing if there was a patent or latent defect in the equipment. The efficacy and utility of clause 17(b) was completely destroyed by the supplier if the right of recourse was dependent on an agreement in writing which could result in abdication of this right.
The UPA Government’s bluff on this issue was called off. The pressure of the ‘hidden hand’ of the nuclear vendors continued to remain. The language of section 17(b) was again altered and a word ‘intent’ was smuggled into the provision of section 17(b) thereby eliminating the principle of strict liability and make it conditional on the defect being intentionally created by the supplier. I again objected to the same and had it deleted. Section 17(b) which operates independent of the agreement in writing under section 17(a) was approved by both Houses of Parliament. This distinction is adequately borne out in my speech in the Rajya Sabha and the Minister’s reply.
But a leopard never changes its’ spots. The Government’s intention to dilute the right of recourse and make it dependent on an agreement continued. When the Rules under the Act were notified such an intention as apparent in the language of Rule 24. Rule 24 deals with section 17(a) of the Act and permitted the contract to specify the duration of initial licence. The ‘product liability period’ is defined as a period for which the supplier has taken responsibility for a patent or latent defect in the product. Even though Rule 24 deals with section 17(a) of the Act, the language of section 17(b) of the Act was lifted bodily and incorporated in the definition of the product liability period thereby creating an ambiguity that clauses 17(a) and 17(b) would be read in conjunction with each other and not dis-conjunctively. The fact that sections 17 (a) (b) and(c) are independent of each other is further apparent from the language of section 17(c) in which a right of recourse is even available for an act of omission or commission of causing nuclear damage. Obviously, such an individual is a person other than the nuclear supplier.
Having been associated in negotiations between the Government and the Opposition when the Bill was being drafted and re-drafted and having been a privy to the Parliament debate wherein this Bill was legislated, I have not the least doubt that for invoking section 17(b) of the Act the existence of an agreement in writing under section 17(a) of the Act is not a condition precedent. The two provisions operate independent of each other. The repeated efforts of the Government at the drafting stage to dilute section 17(b) of the Act had failed. Contemporaneous media reports would evidence this. Any attempt now to permit the NPCIL to abdicate the right given to an operator – a Govt. company, would be compromising with State revenue. It would be a contract contrary to the provisions of section 17(b) of the Act. If a Public sector company willfully enters into an agreement with a foreign vendor and abdicates its’ right to recourse which section 17(b) otherwise provides for its’ benefit, it would not only be violating the provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act but also section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act wherein a wrongful loss would be caused to the revenue of a Public Sector company.”
Shri Jaitley’s reference to “wrongful loss” arising from accident liability is important as such a liability can be far in excess of what a commercially run insurance company anywhere in the world can ever cover. How can the huge cost burden of such a humongous contingent liability be shifted from the reactor supplier responsible for it, to a helpless tax-payer in India? Would it not amount to showing an undue favour to a foreign company?
The Bill now proposed to be pushed through by the NDA government to permit FDI in nuclear power will, for the first time, subject India’s nuclear energy ecosystem to foreign surveillance and influence, reversing Dr Homi J Bhabha’s strategy to build a national nuclear energy establishment based entirely on the foundation of self-reliance and independence from foreign influence. Unlike other sources of energy, the development of nuclear energy in India is closely linked to its strategic interests, which cannot be compromised. As far as the Bill on CLNDA is concerned, insulating foreign reactor suppliers from liability will incentivise them to cut corners in terms of safety, enhancing accident risks many times more. Considering that the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is yet to put in place a functionally autonomous nuclear safety regulatory institution to exercise regulatory oversight on foreign reactors, the risk of occurrence of an accident gets further accentuated.
The successive governments in India have yielded to pressure from Western powers on many other fronts.
For example, India’s long-term nucleary development strategy, as formulated by Dr Homi J Bhabha, is based on the use of Thorium as fuel, the raw material for which is Monazite, found in abundance in beach sands along the country’s coast. Beach sands contain several other strategic atomic minerals including some critical rare earths. Realising the importance of beach sands, India rightly restricted beach sand mining to the public sector and prohibited export of Monazite. It was the UPA government that started tinkering with that policy under external pressure, allowing private parties to mine beach sands and export all atomic minerals other than Monazite, ignoring the fact that such an open-ended relaxation would inevitably allow private miners to smuggle Monazite out of the country. Though the Union Ministry of Mines, in view of serious allegations about Monazite smuggling, banned private mining of beach sands altogether in March, 2019, once again, evidently under pressure, your government chose to amend the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act in 2021 to allow private mining of beach sands. Apparently, foreign agencies, with the help of their Indian corporate cohorts, are tightening their control over India’s nuclear future and security.
The USA seems to be going full steam not only in pressurising India to place its nuclear future in the hands of its reactor and Uranium fuel suppliers but also pressurising global financial institutions like the World Bank and the ADB to lift the existing ban on funding nuclear power. I would invite your government’s attention to my letters cautioning the Presidents of both the World Bank and the ADB on this (https://countercurrents.org/2025/03/would-it-be-prudent-for-the-world-bank-to-lift-ban-on-nuclear-power-projects-the-bank-should-resist-pressure-from-nuclear-reactors-lobby/ &https://countercurrents.org/2025/06/highly-imprudent-for-adb-to-lift-ban-on-funding-nuclear-power/) I wonder whether India’s representatives on the Boards of World Bank/ADB are under instructions from the Ministry of Finance to endorse such a regressive decision that runs counter to the vision of those two inter-country financing institutions, apart from the fact that such a decision indirectly undermines India’s self-reliance in nuclear power.
India’s diplomatic stance vis-a-vis other countries should remain consistent with its national interest. India has rightly opposed USA’s attempts to assume the role of a mediator in its recent war on terrorism. India is reported to have made it clear that the “India-US trade deal played no part in this episode, countering claims that the threat of high(er) tariffs on Indian and Pak exports to the US had brought the conflict to a halt” (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi-tells-trump-india-doesnt-want-mediation-agreed-to-ceasefire-on-pak-request-8696217) In the same spirit, with national interest at heart, India could have resisted US pressure to force it to dilute the Atomic Energy Act and the CLNDA, and prohibited export of atomic minerals and rare earths in beach sands.
In the same manner, upholding the national interest, India could have also reserved its satellite spectrum for strategic uses, instead of so helplessly caving in to Elon Musk’s StatLink, which works closely with US defence services and serves US strategic interests.
Once again, I wish to caution the NDA government against amending the Atomic Energy Act and the CLNDA. I earnestly hope that the BJP recalls the unambiguous stand taken on CLDA by Shri Arun Jaitley when in opposition, ponders over the need to be consistent in its approach to CLNDA and desists from doing anything that is detrimental to the public interest. In fact, what is urgently needed today for the NDA government is to set the record straight by strengthening the provisions of CLNDA and the rules made under it, to reflect the concerns so affirmatively expressed then by Shri Jaitley, instead of allowing foreign nuclear reactor suppliers to hide the potential accident risk of nuclear power and its true cost to the people.
Regards,
Yours sincerely,
E A S Sarma
Former Secretary to the Government of India
Visakhapatnam
(Letter courtesy: Countercurrents.org, an India-based news, views and analysis website, that describes itself as non-partisan and taking “the Side of the People!” It is edited by Binu Mathew.)
