The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the landmark Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010, which aims to facilitate India’s global nuclear commerce.
The bill was necessary for the entry of big companies such as France’s nuclear giant Areva and America’s General Electric and Westinghouse, which were unwilling to d

o business with India without clarity over accident compensation, thereby allowing for the opening up of the country’s $150 billion nuclear market after the government agreed to tougher provisions.
Moving the bill in the Lok Sabha, minister of state for science and technology Prithviraj Chavan said the government had taken on board 18 amendments, which included tripling of the liability cap on an operator in case of an accident to `1,500 crores — up from `500 crores.
The government removed the contentious word “intent” and amended a controversial clause stating that the operator would have the right to recourse in case of a nuclear accident if it was the consequence of an “act of the supplier or his employees done with the intent to cause nuclear damage”. It was after the government removed the word “intent” that the BJP agreed to back the bill in Parliament.
Intervening in the debate over the bill, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphatically refuted charges levelled against his government for succumbing to so-called American pressure. “The accusations are far from the truth,” he said. “This bill has nothing to do with America. Rather, it completes the process of ending nuclear apartheid against India.”
A confident Prime Minister, for whom this bill’s passage is both a political and diplomatic victory, reminded members of how when he had introduced economic reforms in 1991 he had also been accused of selling out the country’s economic interests to the United States.
“Any accusation that we have compromised with India’s interest would be a travesty of the truth,” Dr Singh emphasised.
The Prime Minister also reminded the House that the process of civil nuclear cooperation had begun in 1999. “A lot of work had already been done. That time we were not in power. This is not in contravention to India’s interest,” he said.
Claiming that he could not predict what lies in the future, Dr Singh said: “Technology is not the issue right now, rather it was the regime that hindered India going for clean energy. Now, when everything is in place, India will be able take its nuclear option forward.”
Earlier, initiating the debate, senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh said that since India was buying 40 nuclear power plants, it “was not in a weak position”. Therefore, he added, “it should not allow suppliers to dictate terms”.
Referring to various attempts by the government to introduce contentious clauses in the bill on which it had to backtrack, Mr Singh said the government was indulging in a “sleight of hand” by first introducing the words “and” and later “intent” in the draft bill. “It is a sleight of hand and trickery. First there was ‘and’, then there was ‘intent’. It is simpler and easier to take Parliament along,” he said.
Mr Singh, a former external affairs minister, said while the government had signed the agreement in 2005, it was rushing to get the bill cleared in 2010 just before the November visit of US President Barack Obama.
Mr Singh said his party was ready to support the bill if the government accepted its amendments. “Give us more candour,” he added.
Congress MP Manish Tiwari pointed out that the first initiatives for ending nuclear isolation had been taken by Mr Jaswant Singh (as external affairs minister) when he had held talks with (then US deputy secretary of state) Strobe Talbott. He added: “When Manmohan Singh took over as Prime Minister, he only took that forward.”
In his reply, Mr Prithviraj Chavan said the government had sought to evolve a broad consensus on the legislation by trying to take on board the views of the Opposition parties.
The amended Clause 17(b) now does not have the word “intent” with regard to suppliers or their employees causing an accident at a nuclear plant, a provision strongly objected to by the BJP and Left parties, which felt it was aimed at diluting the liability of suppliers.