The Nuclear Liability Bill
A perspective
by
Maj. Gen. Nilendra Kumar
Director,
Amity Law School,
Noida
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage
Bill, 2010
DEFICIENCIES
•
•
•

Lack of public debate
Hasty drafting
Text warrants relook
TRIGGER MECHANISM
Issue of a notification by the
AERB
Clause 3(1)
No notification if threat and risk is
insignificant.
Clause 3(2)
Questions
1. What is the scale for insignificant?
2. If n...
Clause 2(l)
Definition of an operator means a
person.
Will it extend to a corporate entity?
Clause 5
Provides a shelter to an operator from
payment of compensation, if a nuclear
damage is caused by a nuclear
incide...
Clause 6(2)
Power of the Central Government to
increase the liability beyond Rs. 500
crore is based upon risk involved
rat...
Compensation may be demanded,
amongst others, by the legal
representative of the deceased (Clause 14).
On the other hand, ...
Clause 6
The amount of liability of the
operator shall not include any interest
or cost of proceedings.
Scope for any appeal against an
inadequate award rendered
impracticable because the award is
to be treated as final.
Claus...
RECOMMENDED
1. Review by the Standing Committee.
2. Seek public debate.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010

242 views

Published on

The notions of absolute liability came in for discussion while the framing of The Civil Liability for Nuclear Bill, 2010 was under consideration by the Parliament in India. An exercise was undertaken to put forth requisite inputs to the civil society. The presentation was an effort in that direction.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
242
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010

  1. 1. The Nuclear Liability Bill A perspective by Maj. Gen. Nilendra Kumar Director, Amity Law School, Noida
  2. 2. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010
  3. 3. DEFICIENCIES • • • Lack of public debate Hasty drafting Text warrants relook
  4. 4. TRIGGER MECHANISM Issue of a notification by the AERB Clause 3(1)
  5. 5. No notification if threat and risk is insignificant. Clause 3(2) Questions 1. What is the scale for insignificant? 2. If no notification or no order, will it be a case of speaking order liable to be challenged on grounds of no application of mind?
  6. 6. Clause 2(l) Definition of an operator means a person. Will it extend to a corporate entity?
  7. 7. Clause 5 Provides a shelter to an operator from payment of compensation, if a nuclear damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to certain acts like terrorism. What if the operator contests his liability citing such pretext.
  8. 8. Clause 6(2) Power of the Central Government to increase the liability beyond Rs. 500 crore is based upon risk involved rather than damage caused.
  9. 9. Compensation may be demanded, amongst others, by the legal representative of the deceased (Clause 14). On the other hand, application for compensation has to be made by the person suffering damage. Clause 31(2)
  10. 10. Clause 6 The amount of liability of the operator shall not include any interest or cost of proceedings.
  11. 11. Scope for any appeal against an inadequate award rendered impracticable because the award is to be treated as final. Clauses 16(5) and 33(10)
  12. 12. RECOMMENDED 1. Review by the Standing Committee. 2. Seek public debate.

×