In Parliament, the SHANTI Act, 2025 triggered sharp questions on private sector entry, nuclear liability, safety oversight, and strategic control. This explainer examines what MPs asked, what the government answered in Rajya Sabha replies, and how the new nuclear law actually reshapes India’s energy governance.
New Delhi (ABC Live): For more than six decades, India governed nuclear energy through strict State control. Historically, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 prioritised secrecy and caution. As a result, it never aimed for large civilian expansion. Instead, it centralised authority and limited participation.
However, that design no longer fits India’s current needs.
Today, India requires stable, round-the-clock electricity at scale. At the same time, climate targets demand low-carbon energy sources that renewables alone cannot supply. Therefore, nuclear energy has returned to the centre of national planning. Against this backdrop, the SHANTI Act, 2025, marks a clear legal shift—from containment to capacity building.
Pressures That Forced Legal Change
By 2025, several pressures converged. First, data centres, AI computing, and advanced manufacturing began driving constant power demand. Second, renewable energy faced limits due to storage costs and grid instability. Third, global nuclear supply chains again became tools of geopolitics.
Consequently, the existing legal framework proved inadequate. In practice, the old law could not support rapid, safe expansion. Hence, SHANTI does not merely update nuclear law. Instead, it restructures how India governs nuclear power at scale.
Why Parliament Intervened
Because this shift affects safety, liability, and sovereignty, Parliament intervened directly.
Importantly, Members of Parliament did not question whether nuclear power should expand. That debate, in effect, has ended. Instead, MPs focused on how expansion would occur. For example, they asked whether safety oversight could survive scale and whether liability would truly move away from the State.
Moreover, they questioned whether private participation might dilute strategic control. Therefore, the Government’s written replies matter greatly. In fact, they form the official legislative record that courts and regulators will later rely upon.
Sources and Verification Framework
The Government provided answers in the Rajya Sabha through Dr Jitendra Singh, Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science & Technology and Earth Sciences, and Minister of State in the PMO.
Notably, this explainer relies only on official PIB replies, including:
- SHANTI Act implementation and offences
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2220188®=3&lang=1 - Regulation of private operators and liability
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2220190®=3&lang=1 - Nuclear safety and AERB oversight
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2220195®=3&lang=1 - Objectives of the SHANTI Act
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2220298®=3&lang=1 - Nuclear expansion programme
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2220292®=3&lang=1
In addition, readers may consult:
- Statute explainer: https://abclive.in/2025/12/19/india-new-nuclear-energy-act-2025/
- SMR geopolitics: https://abclive.in/2025/12/13/india-smr-usa-vs-russia/
Why Was a New Nuclear Law Needed?
Parliamentary concern: Why repeal two existing nuclear laws?
Government reply: The old framework had become fragmented and outdated. Therefore, SHANTI combines licensing, safety, liability, waste rules, and dispute resolution into one law. In addition, it aligns nuclear policy with India’s 100-GW target by 2047.
Verification:
✔ Correct.
As a result, India moves from ad-hoc control to predictable rule-based governance.
Does SHANTI Open the Nuclear Sector to Private Companies?
Parliamentary concern: Is this privatisation?
Government reply: No. Private and joint-venture firms may enter only through licences and prior safety approval.
In practice, the Act allows:
- Permitted: power generation, plant operations, equipment manufacturing, SMRs, and limited fuel fabrication.
- Meanwhile, enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing, high-level waste, and heavy water remain State-controlled.
Verification:
✔ Accurate.
Therefore, SHANTI allows participation without surrendering sovereignty.
Who Bears Liability if a Nuclear Incident Occurs?
Parliamentary concern: Will the State still carry the risk?
Government reply: No. The licensed operator bears primary responsibility. Specifically, this includes compensation, insurance, waste handling, and decommissioning.
Crucially, SHANTI replaces a single liability cap with a graded system.
Verification:
✔ Largely correct.
⚠ However, replies understated the State’s emergency powers.
Consequently, SHANTI reallocates risk while preserving a sovereign safety net.
Is Nuclear Safety Being Diluted?
Parliamentary concern: Does private entry weaken safety?
Government reply: No. SHANTI grants statutory status to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
Verification:
✔ Statutory authority strengthened.
⚠ However, functional independence remains unresolved.
Thus, safety law improves, even though governance reform remains partial.
Criminal Liability and Enforcement
Parliamentary concern: Are violations serious offences?
Government reply: Yes. Offences are cognisable under BNSS, 2023.
Accordingly, unauthorised activity can attract jail terms or fines.
Verification:
✔ Accurate.
As a result, private entry comes with strong legal consequences.
How Are Disputes and Compensation Claims Handled?
Parliamentary concern: Will victims face long court battles?
Government reply: No. SHANTI creates Claims Commissioners and a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission.
Furthermore, appeals lie with the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity.
Verification:
✔ Correct.
Therefore, the law prioritises speed and expertise over delay.
Does SHANTI Compromise Strategic Autonomy?
Parliamentary concern: Is India giving up control?
Government reply: No. Strategic domains, safeguards, and acquisition powers remain with the Central Government.
Verification:
✔ Legally correct.
⚠ Nonetheless, operational roles will expand for private players.
In short, SHANTI liberalises process, not power.
Data That Framed Parliamentary Scrutiny
| Indicator | Official Data |
|---|---|
| Installed nuclear capacity | 8.78 GW |
| Share of electricity (FY 2024–25) | ~3.1% |
| Reactors under construction/planning | 17 (13.1 GW) |
| Target by 2031–32 | 22.38 GW |
| Long-term target | 100 GW by 2047 |
| SMR Mission allocation | ₹20,000 crore |
| Target SMRs | ≥5 by 2033 |
Veracity Check | How Accurate Were Government Answers?
| Issue | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Legal consolidation | ✅ Fully accurate |
| Private participation scope | ✅ Fully accurate |
| Sovereign control | ✅ Fully accurate |
| Operator liability | ⚠ Accurate but simplified |
| Graded liability | ✅ Fully accurate |
| Safety strengthening | ⚠ Accurate but incomplete |
| Criminal enforcement | ✅ Fully accurate |
ABC Live Editorial Assessment
Taken together, parliamentary scrutiny shows that the SHANTI Act does not privatise nuclear power. Instead, it reallocates risk, tightens governance, and enables scale.
By doing so, SHANTI shifts responsibility to licensed operators, strengthens enforcement, and retains strategic control. Consequently, it makes a 100-GW nuclear goal legally workable, even as deeper regulatory reforms remain pending.
