The government had made it clear that there would be no changes to the Civil Nuclear Liability for Damage Act (2010).
There has been sharp criticism of the government’s contention that
United States-based suppliers of nuclear reactors and parts will not be
directly liable in case of a nuclear accident, nor can they be sued by
Indian nuclear operators unless the contract they sign clearly states
it. The clarification of the government’s position was released by the
Ministry of External Affairs on Sunday, after it had been shared in a
memorandum with U.S. officials.
In it the government had made it clear that there would be no changes to
the Civil Nuclear Liability for Damage Act (2010), but that liability
for suppliers would apply only if it was written into the contract. The
government also stated that Section 46, which relates to victims of an
accident being able to sue under ‘tort laws’ does not relate to
suppliers at all, and the Parliament debate over the CLND law in 2010
had seen amendments on the issue rejected.
However, Left-party members, who had tried to push for those amendments
counter this. “I think that it is illegal for the MEA to contend that
the suppliers are not included in ‘tort’ liability, and we will take up
all these issues in parliament.” CPI leader D. Raja told The Hindu.
Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari also questioned why Indian
insurance companies had to bear the brunt of the liability. “The
explanation given seems to be in derogation of the law and the will of
the people,” he said. Former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan also criticised the government’s position
saying it “violates the intent and spirit of the CLND,” and accused the
Modi government of trying to “facilitate the business interests of the
foreign and domestic companies, in utter disregard of the devastating
human suffering which is sure to follow a potential severe nuclear
accident.”
Interestingly, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who had attended the early
negotiations of the nuclear contact group that hammered out the recent
agreement, had argued just the opposite when he was Leader of the
Opposition in September 2013. In an article available on the BJP
website, he had argued that the supplier must be made liable mandatorily
and not as an option. “Any attempt to permit NPCIL to abdicate the
right given to an operator, would be compromising… and contrary to the
provisions of Ssection 17(b) of the Act,” he had argued at the time.
When contacted about the agreement on Sunday conflicting with the BJP’s
previous stand, Mr. Jaitley made no comment.
On the issue of tracking nuclear material by the U.S., the MEA
spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin said that “there would only be IAEA
safeguards”, not U.S. safeguards. However, he didn’t reply to the
specific question on whether India has agreed for the first to time to
share data with the U.S., as The Hindu had reported last week.
No comments:
Post a Comment