After facing stiff opposition from the BJP and the Left, the government on Tuesday retracted on its move to dilute a key provision in the Nuclear Liability Bill after tough questioning by members of a parliamentary committee.
Department of atomic energy secretary, Srikumar Banerjee, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao and a number of other senior officials faced tough questions during the meeting of parliamentary standing committee on science and technology on aspects like liability of supplier of a nuclear plant or material and a cap of Rs 500 crores on compensation.
Mr Banerjee expressed regrets for circulating a note at the last meeting which contained a proposal for amending clause 17 (b). The clause 17 (b) proposes that the operator would have legal recourse if a nuclear accident results from the “wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.”
According to the note circulated at the last meeting of the standing committee on June 8, the clause 17 (b) had been deleted while clause 17 (a) and (c) had been retained. “The committee was informed on Tuesday that the government was withdrawing that note and the original clause stands as part of the bill,” sources said.
The clause 17 (a) provides that the operator could have the legal recourse if “such right is expressly provided in the contract in writing” while 17 (c) says the recourse could be taken if “the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of a person done with the intent to cause nuclear damage.” The decision to drop the amendment assumes significance as it coincides with the uproar over the handling of the Bhopal gas tragedy. “During the day-long meeting, members of the committee grilled Mr Banerjee and other officials, questioning the intent behind the amendments and wondering whether the consent of the Cabinet had been taken for it,” sources said.
Another area of contention was the Rs 500-crore cap on the compensation to be paid by an operator of a nuclear power plant in case of an accident. There were strong demands that the cap be raised. Members also had concerns over Section 35 of the Bill which says that no civil court shall have jursidiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Claims Commissioner is empowered to adjudicate.