The US has been repeatedly saying that India's Civil Nuclear Liability bill is in contravention with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation in case of a nuclear accident. The Convention on Supplementary Compensation is an international treaty and that if India wants to make itself an attractive market for nuclear energy and meet its own energy security needs, it must amend its local legislation.
My question is exactly how is Indian Civil Nuclear Liability law in contravention of CSC. Even Indian law is exactly like the CSC - the operator has limited liability, and over and above liability is of govt. + the operator has right to recourse from the manufacturer/supplier for faulty equipment + operator liability is capped at 1500 crore!
This is a complex issue, but can somebody explain how it works?
Comments
US says that a CSC-compliant bill should bar victims of an accident resulting from nuclear equipment supplied by an American company from approaching US courts for compensation. US analysts have criticized that the section 17(b) - right to recourse - makes India ineligible for the Convention. Indian officials, however, insist that the nuclear liability bill is CSC-compliant. It is all about how the CSC and the bill are interpreted in light of each other.
India signed the CSC in November 2010 (on the day before the GS paper :P )
Read a rather clumsily written article on the same, after your reply, but could not make much sense out of it. See if it makes some sense to you
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2675389.ece
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/comment_why-the-nuclear-liability-rules-need-to-be-modified_1621411
Perhaps you are right. Citizens have a right to recourse under the Torts Act - cases against the govt.
Quoting from the above article -
To claim recourse under 17(b), the operator has to prove that the incident occurred because the supplied equipment or material had ‘patent or latent defects or the services provided were sub-standard.’ But, under Section 46, a victim of a nuclear accident could bring a liability claim against the operator in courts under Tort Law and include the supplier also as co-defendant. In this case, the plaintiffs have to merely prove that the product or service caused the harm, but do not have to prove exactly how the product or service was deficient or that the supplier was negligent. The damages to be awarded in such cases are not specifically capped under law, and these will be decided by the court, based on circumstances.
Pls let me know if you find something better written + most recently written since most articles were written before the bill was presented in the Parliament
and this in case of further doubt : http://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/24766/Frequently+Asked+Questions+and+Answers+on+Civil+Liability+for+Nuclear+Damage+Act+2010+and+related+issues
Isn't it dangerous in the aftermath of fukushima incident??
@Armstrong @all please clarify.
Sec 17(b) of the Act gives the operator the right to recover whatever he pays out as no fault liability from the supplier, if the accident had resulted from an act of the supplier or his employees. However, the operator's liability is capped at 1500 cr.
The Parliament wanted to make it clear that rights of victims were protected and that is why Sec 46 was added which says the CLNDA will be "in addition to and not in derogation of other laws in force" and that payment of civil damages would not exempt operator from other proceedings such as filing of a criminal case.
US says that 17 (b) lies outside the CSC; that it will expose their companies to unlimited damages in the event of an accident.
A clarification issued by MEA says that the right to recourse will be possible only if under 6a, it is written in the contract between the NPCIL and the supplier. That is, no liability for supplier unless it is in nuclear contract. Thus, while the right to recourse is permitted, it is not required or necessary.
As far as Sec 46 goes, the Ministry says Parliament debates over CLNDA had rejected amendments to include the supplier, and therefore the supplier cannot be liable under any class action suit. The operator can still be sued by victims in case of an accident and a lot will depend on how the courts interpret the CLNDA.