What’s spooking Opposition about the SHANTI Bill: Safety, sovereignty, and who pays if things go wrong

Opposition MPs warn of safety, liability and sovereignty risks as Parliament debates opening India’s tightly controlled nuclear sector to private players.

India’s plan to open its tightly controlled nuclear power sector to private players has collided head-on with Parliament’s deepest anxieties: public safety, sovereign control, and who pays when things go wrong.

As the Rajya Sabha debated the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill on Thursday, opposition MPs across parties warned that the proposed law marks a historic, and dangerous, shift away from seven decades of state dominance in nuclear energy.

The Bill, already passed by the Lok Sabha, seeks to allow private participation across large parts of the civil nuclear value chain as India chases a government-stated target of 100 GW of atomic energy capacity by 2047.

Trinamool Congress MP Sagarika Ghose framed the debate as one of sovereignty and risk.

“This Bill brings neither shanti nor security,” she said, arguing that the legislation could shift nuclear safety from statutory protections to contract clauses, weakening victims’ ability to seek redress after an accident. Ghose called the move an end to decades of state exclusivity over one of India’s most sensitive sectors.

DMK MP P Wilson went further, calling the Bill a 'nuclear bomb' aimed at India’s peace and security. He warned against handing operational control of fissile material, radioactive waste and nuclear technologies to profit-driven private entities with “unclear accountability”.

\A recurring flashpoint in the debate was liability.

Opposition MPs argued that the Bill dilutes the operator’s statutory right of recourse against suppliers — a cornerstone of India’s post-2010 nuclear liability framework. Critics say this effectively shields reactor suppliers from responsibility for faulty equipment, shifting the financial burden of accidents to the State and victims.

Congress leader Manish Tewari called the approach 'unheard of' in a sector where catastrophic risk is inherent. “You privatise profit and socialise liability,” he said, questioning the pressure behind the proposed changes.

Several MPs questioned why India was moving toward a private-led model when major nuclear powers still rely heavily on the state.

RJD MP Manoj Jha pointed out that nuclear facilities in France, China and Russia are largely state-owned, with the United States being the notable exception. “The American model cannot be considered best practice for India,” he said, warning that the Bill risks privatising gains while making the public bear the fallout.

Jairam Ramesh echoed that argument, urging the government to strengthen NPCIL and standardise India’s indigenous 700 MW reactor design instead of opening the door to what he called a 'vendor-driven' nuclear expansion. He flagged India’s vast thorium reserves and argued that energy security should be built around domestic technology.

The government, backed by BJP MP Kiran Chaudhary, defended the Bill as an attempt to modernise nuclear law, end fragmentation, and accelerate capacity addition after years of slow progress. She said stringent licensing and security clearances would remain under central government control.

At present, India’s nuclear capacity is about 7.5 GW, a fraction of what would be needed to meet the 100 GW target by 2047. Supporters of the Bill argue that public capital alone cannot finance that scale of expansion.

The political clash has spilled beyond the House.

The All India Power Engineers Federation (AIPEF) announced nationwide protests on December 23, alongside central trade unions and the Samyukt Kisan Morcha, demanding withdrawal of the Bill and restoration of stringent liability provisions.

Their charge mirrors the Opposition’s core argument: that the SHANTI Bill dismantles India’s nuclear safety architecture and opens a high-risk sector to private and foreign interests without adequate accountability.