INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

How is India's Civil Nuclear Liability Bill in contravention of CSC?

13»

Comments

  • I think other ppl would be able to provide better answer but here is what I know about the issue
    Nuclear liability act provides for operator liability to the tune of 1500 crore with right to recourse under section 17 of the act.
    But section 46 allows victims of nuclear accidents to launch class action suits against both suppliers and operated and demand compensation over and above the amount of compensation fixed under csc (that is 300 million sdr or 1500 crore).so suppliers would be exposed to unlimited compensation claims that would be decided by judicial process.
  • edited October 2015
    What I've summed up is this:

    USA had following problems with CLND Act, 2010

    1. S. 17(b): 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.

    US & Fr feels this right to recourse isn’t in tune with CSC (Convention of supplementary convention) on N-damages where the primary liability is with the operator & Not Supplier.

    2. S. 46: puts liability on N-suppliers in case of accident due to faulty material supplied by suppliers. US Cos like Westinghouse & GE-Hitachi are worried. It is also interpreted that victims can use S. 46 to tort claims & compensation (i.e. sue these N-suppliers). So US want amendment in CLND Act 2010

    India clarifies: 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. Thus it isn’t by default part of Civil N-Cooperation agreement.

    3. Another contentious clause in the liability law was unlimited liability for which international companies will find it difficult to get insurers.

    Now Question is How did the reconciliation happen without amending CLND Act?
    Point 3 was addressed without changing law how? Point 2 was addressed as can be seen from MEA statement.

    Also for Point 1 it is said that N-risk fund is planned but when we make a Nuclear Risk fund with funding from Insurance PSUs. Isn't public money used in here?
    as per my understanding,
    -point 3 ie sec 46, excluded suppliers during the parliamentary debate, now only the operators are liable as per the act.
    -section 35 says about nuclear damage claims commission to be set up and will have sole jurisdiction over it..so the question of tort law for compensation doesn't arise.
    -there is no such unlimited liability in the act.
    -N-risk fund will have both public as well as private players including international insurance cos.
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google