What Is the SHANTI Bill, and Why Has It Triggered a Political Storm?

The Lok Sabha’s passage of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill marks the biggest shake-up of India’s nuclear sector since the early decades after Independence. Touted by the government as a historic reform that will unlock clean energy and private investment, the Bill has also drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition, which warns that it dilutes safety, accountability and public interest in one of the country’s most sensitive sectors.

Why the SHANTI Bill Matters

India’s nuclear sector has long been governed by two laws: the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. Together, they entrenched a state monopoly over nuclear power generation and imposed strict liability norms that discouraged private and foreign participation.

The SHANTI Bill seeks to replace both laws with a single, consolidated framework. According to the government, this overhaul is essential if nuclear energy is to play a meaningful role in India’s long-term goals of energy security, climate mitigation and technological self-reliance.

Addressing Parliament, Jitendra Singh, Minister of State in the Department of Atomic Energy, described the Bill as a reform “inconceivable for over six decades”, crediting Prime Minister Narendra Modi with breaking long-standing policy taboos and aligning India with global best practices.

Opening the Nuclear Sector to Private Players

The most consequential change under the SHANTI Bill is the opening up of nuclear power generation to private Indian companies, joint ventures and even foreign firms. Until now, only the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited was authorised to build and operate nuclear plants.

Under the new framework, private participation is allowed, though the government retains control over “sensitive” domains such as nuclear fuel, heavy water production and radioactive waste management, citing national security concerns.

Strengthening the Nuclear Regulator

Another major reform is granting statutory backing to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. The AERB, which previously functioned through executive orders, will now derive its authority directly from legislation and be accountable to Parliament.

The stated objective is to improve transparency, independence and credibility in nuclear regulation — a key demand of investors and international partners.

What the Bill Changes on Nuclear Liability

One of the most controversial provisions relates to liability in the event of a nuclear accident. The SHANTI Bill removes automatic supplier liability and fixes liability solely on plant operators. Even this liability is capped and linked to the capacity of the plant, rather than the scale of damage caused.

This marks a clear departure from the 2010 law, which allowed operators to seek recourse against suppliers and was framed in the shadow of the Bhopal gas tragedy.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of a specialised tribunal to adjudicate atomic energy disputes, aiming for faster resolution than conventional courts.

Push for New Nuclear Technologies

The government has positioned the SHANTI Bill as a forward-looking reform that encourages next-generation nuclear technologies. It explicitly promotes Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are smaller, potentially safer and easier to deploy than traditional large reactors.

This aligns with the Nuclear Energy Mission announced in the Union Budget 2025–26, under which India plans to build at least five indigenous SMRs by 2033. Other technologies under consideration include Bharat Small Reactors, molten salt reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors.

Why the Opposition Is Alarmed

Opposition parties have criticised the Bill for prioritising investment over safety and accountability. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor described the legislation as “a milestone for the wrong reasons”, arguing that it is heavy on executive discretion and indifferent to public welfare.

Critics point to the removal of supplier liability and the capping of operator liability as fundamental flaws. They argue that linking liability to plant size, rather than actual damage, violates the “polluter pays” principle and could leave victims inadequately compensated in the event of a serious accident.

Lessons from Bhopal and the Fear of Moral Hazard

Underlying much of the opposition is India’s historical experience with industrial disasters, most notably the Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984. Critics fear that reduced liability could create a moral hazard, where corporations enjoy profits while the State and citizens bear the long-term costs of accidents involving radioactive leaks or nuclear waste.

They warn that nuclear accidents carry irreversible risks, from environmental contamination to long-lived health impacts, making accountability mechanisms far more critical than in other industries.

India’s Nuclear Ambitions and the Stakes Involved

India’s installed nuclear capacity stands at about 8.18 GW in 2025, while the long-term target for 2047 is an ambitious 100 GW. With over 20 reactors currently in operation and more planned, nuclear energy is expected to become a significant pillar of India’s clean energy transition.

Whether the SHANTI Bill accelerates this transition without compromising safety will depend on how its provisions are implemented, how independent the regulator proves to be, and whether public trust can be maintained.

A Reform with High Rewards — and High Risks

The SHANTI Bill undeniably signals a decisive shift in India’s nuclear policy, breaking a six-decade-old state monopoly and courting private capital and advanced technology. At the same time, it raises fundamental questions about risk-sharing, accountability and public safety.

As India seeks to scale up nuclear power to meet its development and climate goals, the debate around SHANTI underscores a deeper tension: how to balance investment and innovation with the unique, long-term risks of nuclear energy.