Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has sharply criticized the government’s proposed nuclear energy law, calling it “a dangerous leap into privatized nuclear expansion” that lacks adequate safeguards for public safety, environmental protection and victim justice.
Speaking during the debate in the Lok Sabha on the Sustainable Use and Advancement of Nuclear Energy to Transform India (Peace) Bill, Tharoor raised questions on both the intention and drafting of the legislation. He commented, “I am not sure whether it is a nuclear bill or a vague bill.”
Privatization vs Public Safety
At the center of Tharoor’s criticism is a provision in the bill that allows private entities to enter a large share of the nuclear power sector. He argued that the proposed framework opens up everything from mining to waste management to private players, without clearly defined eligibility criteria.
“This effectively amounts to opening up the entire nuclear energy sector to a wide range of private actors,” he said, warning that profit-driven operations could compromise safety standards at multiple stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Tharoor said the bill was “full of exceptions, heavy on discretion and largely indifferent to public welfare.” He cautioned that the pursuit of capital cannot be allowed to overshadow non-negotiable concerns such as public safety, environmental protection and justice for victims in the event of an accident.
He also criticized the bill’s description of nuclear energy as a “clean and abundant source”, calling the language misleading given the risks of radioactive leakage, long-lived nuclear waste, and catastrophic accidents.
Risks of Single Holistic License
Another major concern was that the bill allowed for a single composite license covering multiple nuclear activities. Tharoor argued that allowing a single entity to control mining, fuel manufacturing, reactor operations and waste management would increase systemic risk exponentially.
“When profit becomes the primary objective throughout the chain, security checks at every step can be compromised,” he warned.
Putting the bill in historical perspective, Tharoor reminded how India’s nuclear program was shaped by Jawaharlal Nehru and later strengthened under Manmohan Singh through the 2008 India-US nuclear deal, which ended India’s international isolation.
“This bill now confronts us with a disappointing reversal,” he said, adding that it deepens uncertainty over the future direction of India’s nuclear infrastructure.
fuel realities
Tharoor also underlined resource constraints, noting that India’s usable uranium reserves are limited. While the country has significant thorium reserves, he pointed out that thorium-based reactors are decades away from large-scale deployment.
“The entire life cycle of nuclear fuel, from mining to waste disposal, is neither clean nor sustainable,” he said.
A major flashpoint was the proposed liability framework. Tharoor highlighted that the bill caps the total liability for a nuclear incident at approximately $460 million, or ₹3,910 crore, a figure that has remained unchanged for 15 years.
“Despite inflation, despite Fukushima, despite everything we have learned, this limit remains untouched,” he said, questioning whether it provides meaningful protection to affected communities.
need review
Arguing that the bill suffers from fundamental structural flaws, Tharoor said it needs extensive reworking rather than cosmetic amendments. Ideally, it should have been referred to a joint parliamentary committee for a thorough investigation, he said.
“The peace bill is a milestone,” he said, “but for the wrong reasons.”