New amendments by the government to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, could trigger a fresh controversy as these could be seen as diluting the right of recourse of the operator to seek damages from the supplier in the event of an accident.
One of the 18 amendments cleared by the Union Cabinet on Friday suggests that an accident in a nuclear plant should have occurred as a consequence of an act done with an “intent” if an operator has to claim damages from the supplier.
The amended Clause 17 says “the operator of a nuclear installation, after paying the compensation for nuclear damage in accordance with Section 6, shall have a right of recourse where such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing, the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employees, done with the intent to cause nuclear damage, and such act includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services, the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of an individual done with intent to cause nuclear damage.”
Experts feel that the mention of “intent” in the subclauses (b) and (c) regarding an accident may give a route to suppliers to escape responsibility because it would be difficult to prove intent in any such mishap.
This amendment to the bill will be moved along with 17 other amendments in the Lok Sabha on August 25. Significantly, neither the original bill nor the recommendations of the parliamentary standing committee which examined it had contained such a proposal.
Just recently the government had to retreat when a controversy arose over inclusion of the word “and” between sub-clauses (a) and (b) in Clause 17 which the BJP and Left parties feared diluted the supplier’s liability in case of an accident.
The government then dropped the controversial word but reworked the language of Clause 17 in which the word “intent” has been included.
CPI leader D. Raja reacted strongly to the fresh changes, saying these would dilute the supplier’s liability drastically. “I don’t understand what they say. Disaster is a disaster. Who will agree that this was done wilfully or deliberately? It is irrational and ridiculous,” he was quoted as saying. The Left parties would look at the amendments carefully when these are brought before Parliament and then decide their strategy.