The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a plea challenging the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, which allows private sector participation in the country’s nuclear projects.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi posted the matter for further consideration after the Holi vacation. In the meantime, the bench asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for PIL petitioners E.A.S. Sarma, a former civil servant, and five scientists, to place before the court details about the global regulatory mechanism governing
such projects.
The bench orally observed that the issue was “sensitive” and the legislation was considered in the context of boosting the country’s energy needs.
The CJI pointed out that there had been opposition to even the use of coal, compressed gas and forest wealth, but the country needed to boost its energy meets.
Bhushan suggested that the answer was solar energy as the cost of producing nuclear energy was four times higher.
“For solar energy, we need lithium,” Justice Bagchi said, noting that India would have to depend on countries such as China for the metal.
Bhushan argued the SHANTI Act was passed in haste and went against the absolute liability principle for hazardous industries laid down by the Supreme Court in the Oleum gas leak case
in 1987.
He claimed there were no adequate mechanisms to safeguard lakhs of people who would face nuclear accidents along the lines of “Chernobyl and Fukushima”.
The bench, however, said it would examine the petition and take a view.
According to the petitioners, the SHANTI Act was passed by Parliament in December 2025 within a week of its introduction and without any meaningful discussion. They alleged that the legislation marked a fundamental departure from India’s historical nuclear governance framework by opening significant segments of nuclear activity to private (including
foreign) entities, which hitherto were reserved for government or entities established by it.
The petitioners underlined that the act capped the liability of the operators at an absurdly low level and exempted the supplier from any liability. “(This) is bound to encourage manufacturers and suppliers to cut corners in safety to maximise profits and hence risks jeopardising the lives and livelihood of people,” they said.