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.

1. The Nuclear Liability Bill
A perspective
by
Maj. Gen. Nilendra Kumar
Director,
Amity Law School,
Noida

2. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage
Bill, 2010

3. DEFICIENCIES
•
•
•
Lack of public debate
Hasty drafting
Text warrants relook

4. TRIGGER MECHANISM
Issue of a notification by the
AERB
Clause 3(1)

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. Clause 2(l)
Definition of an operator means a
person.
Will it extend to a corporate entity?

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. 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. 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. Clause 6
The amount of liability of the
operator shall not include any interest
or cost of proceedings.

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. RECOMMENDED
1. Review by the Standing Committee.
2. Seek public debate.