SC declines to go into safety of nuclear plants

[1]

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to go into the safety of nuclear plants in the country, saying it does not have an 'expertise' to examine highly technical matter like this but left hearing open on the issue of regulatory mechanism on the general safety aspect of nuclear energy in the wake of a PIL challenging the validity of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act.

“Every nuclear plant is in a particular area. Location is important. People living in the area is important… every plant has its own standard. We don’t have expertise and can’t lay norms for each plant,” a bench comprising Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and justices A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar said.

Thirteen prominent citizens and two NGOs had moved a PIL on the safety of nuclear plants in the wake of agitations in several parts against setting up of some new ones, seeking reassessment of the entire policy and challenging the constitutional validity of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, passed by the Parliament following the India-US civil nuclear deal.

As their counsel Prashant Bhushan submitted that even former chairperson of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, A. Gopalkrishnan, had written several letters to the Prime Minister on general safety aspects, the bench asked him to place the correspondence with the PMO on record.

Besides, Gopalkrishnan, the petitioners had “extensive” discussions with other nuclear experts and scientists in 13 public sector undertakings of the Union government.

“We are not seeking re-look into the entire nuclear policy but only want to examine the safety aspects and for that Atomic Energy Commission should be an independent regulatory body not the one functioning under government as it presently does,” Bhushan said while accusing the government of only dealing with certain “extraneous issues to please the foreign powers”.

Since the court wanted to examine the representations sent to the PM on the issue by the petitioners and some nuclear experts, the hearing was adjourned for two weeks.

Who is responsible for N-power safety?

* ‘Location is important. People living in the area is important… every plant has its own standard. We don’t have expertise and we can’t lay norms for each plant,’ said the bench

* It asked that letters written by former AERB chairperson be placed on record

* Prashant Bhushan, challenging party counsel, said the government only dealt with ‘extraneous issues to please foreign powers’