N-deal: BJP says violation of liability Act will amount to graft

Jaitley alleged that the Congress-led UPA government has the intention to dilute the right of recourse provision through the Rules under the Act.

Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley Sunday said the violation of the provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act in any contract between Indian nuclear power operator Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and a US firm would amount to corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Any attempt now to permit the NPCIL to abdicate the right given to an operator a government company would be compromising with state revenue. It would be a contract contrary to the provisions of section 17(b) of the Act. If a public sector company wilfully enters into an agreement with a foreign vendor and abdicates its right to recourse which section 17(b) otherwise provides for its benefit,it would not only be violating the provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act but also section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act wherein a wrongful loss would be caused to the revenue of a public sector company, Jaitley wrote in a signed article.

The Leader of Opposition,in this backdrop,reminded that he was privy to the discussions between the government and the Opposition on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act in 2010 to stress Parliament ensured that the nuclear plant operators right of recourse with the supplier was made independent of an agreement in writing if there was a patent or latent defect in equipment because section 17(b) of the Act operates independent of the agreement in writing under section 17(a) of the same Act.

Jaitley alleged that the Congress-led UPA government has the intention to dilute the right of recourse provision through the Rules under the Act and claimed that the government has tried to achieve this through Rule 24 of the Act.

But a leopard never changes its spots. The governments intention to dilute the right of recourse and make it dependent on an agreement continued. When the Rules under the Act were notified such an intention as apparent in the language of Rule 24… creating an ambiguity that clauses 17(a) and 17(b) would be read in conjunction with each other and not dis-conjunctively, Jaitley said in his article pointing out that Rule 24,which deals with section 17(a) of the Act and permits the contract to specify the duration of initial licence,has defined the product liability period.