Plea challenging SHANTI Act: Very sensitive legislative policy issue… can’t second guess, says Supreme Court
Justice Bagchi termed it a matter of “economic policy” and added that the court cannot “second guess” in such matters.
The CJI said courts can always act as far the state is concerned. “It cannot run away from its responsibility. The Act is only limiting the liability of those who are coming to invest here. That does not take away the power of the court to ask the state to compensate.”
Terming the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, capping liability of the operator and the state, a “very sensitive legislative policy issue”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would try to allay apprehensions of the petitioner that it may deprive citizens of what is due to them in case of an unfortunate incident.
“Our concern is not who has been absolved of liability, but whether in the event of an unfortunate incident, a citizen suffers any injury, do we have a robust compensatory mechanism. If that is addressed, probably your apprehension disappears,” CJI Surya Kant, presiding over a three-judge bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said while hearing a PIL by a former bureaucrat E A S Sarma challenging the Act.
Justice Bagchi termed it a matter of “economic policy” and added that the court cannot “second guess” in such matters.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said the Act caps the liability of the operator at less than Rs 4,000 crore which will not be enough to meet the damages which are often hundreds of times more as in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
The CJI expressed the apprehension that higher caps may discourage foreign investors. “Suppose if you provide such a robust kind of compensatory regime, the technology is available within your country. You have to depend upon the technology from somewhere else. Who will come?” he said.
Bhushan said a Constitution Bench had in the Shri Ram Oleum Gas Leakage case of 1986 said that all private corporations also, which are regulated by the state, will come within the ambit of Articles 12 and 21 if carrying out hazardous activities, and that they will be strictly and absolutely liable for any damage caused by any activity which is hazardous in nature.
He said the government can do whatever by way of policy, but it cannot “sacrifice Article 21 rights of citizens on the altar of policy”.
The CJI said courts can always act as far the state is concerned. “It cannot run away from its responsibility. The Act is only limiting the liability of those who are coming to invest here. That does not take away the power of the court to ask the state to compensate.”
Bhushan said the Act also caps the residual liability of the government.
The CJI however said, “Suppose liability comes to 40,000 crore. The nation, through a parliamentary regime, can make a commitment to an investor, that look here, liability may be whatever, but as far as you are concerned, we absolve you beyond Rs 4,000 crore. That cannot and does not tinker with the power of the court to determine and ascertain the compensation to which a victim is entitled.”
The top court will hear the matter next in July.
Share
