contractual ingenuity civil nuclear liability bill

Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill, 2010 faces further delay - BJP, Left cry foul over alterations

• The Government was forced to postpone a crucial Cabinet meeting on Thursday that was to discuss, among other issues, the amendments suggested by a Parliamentary panel on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill, 2010. This comes amid fresh hurdles to the clearance of the contentious legislation, with the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party crying foul, alleging that some portions of the panel's recommendations had been altered and the Left claiming the new draft further dilutes the liability of foreign reactor equipment suppliers in the event of an accident.

• The Cabinet meeting is now scheduled for Friday, where the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee will be taken up. The objections by both the BJP and the Left parties pertain to a newly inserted change in the final recommendations submitted by the Committee. In its report submitted to Parliament on Tuesday, the Standing Committee had suggested a change in the Bill by clubbing together two provisions, making the recovery of damages from a supplier - even if it involved gross negligence - contingent upon the operator getting acceptance of liability in a written contract from the supplier.

• The Left leaders said the change was an afterthought as a fresh sheet had been inserted into the printed report of the committee to incorporate the change. Alleging that the draft that had been agreed upon has been altered, the BJP also raised the issue of the clubbing of two sub-clauses [Clause 17 (a) and (b)] in the recommendations. In a note to the Government, the BJP expressed objection to the addition of the word "and" in the proposed legislation after Clause 17(a), which deals with the right of recourse of an operator of a nuclear plant, and a subsequent sub-clause that addresses the issue of suppliers' obligations in case of an accident.

• Clause 17 says that, "The operator of a nuclear installation shall have a right of recourse where - (a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing". The BJP claimed that the, "efficacy and utility of Clause 17 (b) on the supplier is completely destroyed by the supplier not agreeing to an agreement in writing. Thus, what Clause 17(b) gives as a protection to the operator, the word 'and' snatches it away".

• The clubbing of the two clauses on the right of recourse of a nuclear plant operator was aimed at protecting the foreign equipment suppliers, the CPI (M) General Secretary, Mr Prakash Karat, told newspersons after a meeting of top Left leaders here. Referring to Clause 17 of the Bill, he said the right of the operator to claim damages from the supplier of nuclear equipment and material (right of recourse) has "now been made entirely contingent on whether such right is explicitly provided in the private contract between the operator and supplier".

• In the likely scenario of the foreign suppliers not agreeing to provide for right of recourse in the contract, they cannot be held liable for any nuclear damage, even if they have supplied defective equipment, Mr Karat said. "What is more dubious is that this significant weakening of Clause 17 has been done under the guise of strengthening the right of recourse against the foreign suppliers," he added. The CPI (M) has also asked for the overall liability to be raised to Rs 10,000 crore. The BJP and Left opposition on the suppliers' liability clause casts a shadow on the Nuclear Bill.

Source hindu businessline