What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

Examiners may confuse the SHANTI Act with the older Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. They may swap the liability caps (e.g., stating the 2010 Act cap was Rs 100 Cr instead of Rs 1500 Cr) or misattribute the 'right of recourse' against suppliers to the SHANTI Act instead of the 2010 Act. They may also ask about the 'no-fault' regime in the wrong context.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: Operator liability caps under SHANTI Act: Rs 100 Cr (up to 150 MW), Rs 300 Cr (150-750 MW), Rs 3000 Cr (above 3600 MW). 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench hearing the challenge). 3. Target this Legal Point: Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 challenged; Absolute Liability Doctrine (Shriram Oleum Gas Case, 1987); Polluter Pays Principle (Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, 1996).

PolityEnvironment

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 1 of 23

SHANTI Act Caps Nuclear Operator Liability Rs 100 Cr to Rs 3000 Cr, Supreme Court Hearing Constitutional Challenge

Q: Which constitutional principle, established in the Shriram Oleum Gas case (1987), is being invoked in the challenge against the SHANTI Act's liability caps?

The Doctrine of Absolute Liability, The petition challenges the SHANTI Act under Article 21, arguing it violates the 'absolute liability' doctrine laid down in the Shriram Oleum Gas case (1987). This doctrine holds that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are absolutely liable for all damage, independent of fault.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the SHANTI Act: 1. It caps the liability of nuclear plant operators, with the maximum cap being Rs. 3,000 crores for the largest reactors. 2. It completely removes any statutory liability for suppliers of nuclear equipment. 3. It preserves the right of recourse against suppliers as was present in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 2, Statement 1 is correct as per the article: reactors above 3,600 MW have a maximum operator liability of Rs. 3,000 crores. Statement 2 is correct: the SHANTI Act narrows supplier recourse to only contractual terms or intentional acts, effectively removing the statutory liability present in the 2010 Act's Section 17(b). Statement 3 is incorrect because the SHANTI Act repealed the 2010 Act and its provisions.

Q: According to the SHANTI Act, what is the maximum liability cap for the operator of a nuclear reactor with thermal power between 150 MW and 750 MW?

Rs. 300 crores, The article states that under the SHANTI Act's Second Schedule, reactors between 150 MW and 750 MW attract a maximum operator liability of Rs. 300 crores. Rs. 100 crores is for reactors up to 150 MW, Rs. 1,500 crores was the cap under the old 2010 Act, and Rs. 3,000 crores is for reactors above 3,600 MW.

Q: What is the primary constitutional argument against the SHANTI Act's provision allowing the government to classify nuclear information as restricted?

It undermines the Right to Information, a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)., The petition challenges Section 39 of the SHANTI Act under Article 19(1)(a). The article states this section empowers the government to classify information and prohibit publication, overriding the RTI Act. The Supreme Court has held the Right to Information to be a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a).

Polity Environment Science & TechCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GABankingPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

23 May 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:Rs. 100 croresRs. 300 croresRs. 3,000 croresRs. 3,900 crores10 years20 years

Bodies:Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court is examining a constitutional challenge to the SHANTI Act's liability caps, questioning whether statutory limits can restrict the court's power to award compensation.

2.The SHANTI Act replaced the 2010 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, significantly lowering operator liability caps and removing supplier liability provisions, a move driven by foreign investment pressures.

3.The petition argues the Act violates Article 21 (right to life) by undermining the 'absolute liability' and 'polluter pays' principles, Article 14 through arbitrary caps, and Article 19(1)(a) by allowing information suppression.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court is hearing a constitutional challenge to the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, which caps operator liability for nuclear accidents at levels petitioners argue are 'absurdly low' and exempts suppliers, potentially violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Previous ActCivil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010

New ActSHANTI Act (Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act)

Operator Liability Cap (Smallest Reactor)Rs. 100 crores

Operator Liability Cap (Largest Reactor)Rs. 3,000 crores

Total Government Liability CapApproximately Rs. 3,900 crores

Claim Time Limit (Property Damage)10 years

Claim Time Limit (Personal Injury)20 years

Articles ChallengedArticles 14, 19, and 21

1-Minute Revision

›Previous Act: Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010
›New Act: SHANTI Act (Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act)
›Target this Data: Operator liability caps under SHANTI Act: Rs 100 Cr (up to 150 MW), Rs 300 Cr (150-750 MW), Rs 3000 Cr (above 3600 MW).
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench hearing the challenge).
›Target this Legal Point: Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 challenged; Absolute Liability Doctrine (Shriram Oleum Gas Case, 1987); Polluter Pays Principle (Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action, 1996).

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Constitutional Challenge

The Supreme Court hears a petition arguing the SHANTI Act's liability caps violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

🔬

Liability Framework Shift

The SHANTI Act replaced the 2010 Act, lowering operator caps and removing supplier liability to attract private/foreign investment.

⚠️

Financial Risk Transfer

The Act shifts the financial burden of nuclear accidents from operators and suppliers to the government (taxpayers) after caps are exhausted.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

India's nuclear liability regime evolved from the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which established a no-fault liability system with operator liability capped at Rs 1,500 crores and included a right of recourse against suppliers (Section 17(b)). The SHANTI Act, enacted to boost nuclear capacity to 100 GW by 2047, fundamentally altered this framework by significantly lowering operator caps based on reactor size and eliminating statutory supplier liability, a change driven by pressure from foreign manufacturers and governments.

Core Analysis & Implications

The constitutional challenge rests on three pillars. First, under Article 21, it invokes the 'absolute liability' doctrine from the Shriram Oleum Gas case (1987), arguing that hazardous enterprises must bear full costs, and the 'polluter pays' principle, arguing SHANTI transfers costs to taxpayers. Second, under Article 14, it challenges the arbitrariness of the liability caps (Rs 100 Cr to Rs 3000 Cr), which petitioners claim bear no rational relation to potential harm, citing historical accident costs (Chernobyl: $235-700 billion). Third, under Article 19(1)(a), it challenges Section 39, which allows the government to classify nuclear information as restricted, overriding the RTI Act and hindering victim claims.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The Supreme Court's focus is on whether statutory caps can limit judicial power to award compensation. The outcome will determine the balance between attracting private investment for energy goals and protecting constitutional rights. If the court strikes down the caps, it could necessitate a legislative rethink, potentially reinstating elements of the 2010 Act or crafting a new framework that reconciles economic pragmatism with robust victim protection and environmental justice.

Key Facts at a Glance

Previous ActCivil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010

New ActSHANTI Act (Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act)

Operator Liability Cap (Smallest Reactor)Rs. 100 crores

Operator Liability Cap (Largest Reactor)Rs. 3,000 crores

Total Government Liability CapApproximately Rs. 3,900 crores

Claim Time Limit (Property Damage)10 years

Claim Time Limit (Personal Injury)20 years

Articles ChallengedArticles 14, 19, and 21

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, MPSC

Which constitutional principle, established in the Shriram Oleum Gas case (1987), is being invoked in the challenge against the SHANTI Act's liability caps?

Q2Statement-basedMediumUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the SHANTI Act:

1. It caps the liability of nuclear plant operators, with the maximum cap being Rs. 3,000 crores for the largest reactors.

2. It completely removes any statutory liability for suppliers of nuclear equipment.

3. It preserves the right of recourse against suppliers as was present in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

According to the SHANTI Act, what is the maximum liability cap for the operator of a nuclear reactor with thermal power between 150 MW and 750 MW?

Q4Application/ImpactHardUPSC

What is the primary constitutional argument against the SHANTI Act's provision allowing the government to classify nuclear information as restricted?

All 15 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →EnvironmentView Topic MCQs →Science & TechView Topic MCQs →

Next Allahabad HC Directs ESIC to Appoint MTS, Rules Juvenile Case Pendency Cannot Deny Employment Under Juvenile Justice Act

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Cabinet Approves Rs 23,731 Cr GOBARdhan Scheme; Rajya Sabha Clears Rs 54,067 Cr Appropriation Bill

The UPSC Key article covers multiple critical topics: the Rajya Sabha cleared the Appropriation Bill for Rs 54,067 Cr excess expenditure, the Cabinet approved the Rs 23,731 Cr GOBARdhan scheme to boost CBG production, and new high-resolution images of the Sun's surface were captured. Also includes data on road safety Good Samaritans, school consolidation, and ethanol policy.

Environment Current Affairs

Supreme Court Allows Narrow Post-Facto Environment Clearance Amnesty, Sets Aside 2021 OM

The Supreme Court struck down the 2021 Office Memorandum that allowed blanket regularisation of projects without prior environmental clearance. However, it permitted a narrowly tailored amnesty scheme if justified by compelling public interest, shifting from its earlier absolute ban. This judgment reinforces the precautionary principle and proportionality, requiring the government to demonstrate necessity and weigh environmental costs.

Polity Current Affairs

UPSC Key: 14 Internal EC Dissents, Tarang Shakti-26 Multinational Exercise, and AI-Driven Semiconductor Supercycle

This Indian Express 'UPSC Key' compilation covers six critical topics: unprecedented internal dissent within the Election Commission (14 objections in 10 months), the second edition of India's largest multinational air exercise Tarang Shakti-26, the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the Bijoe Emmanuel precedent on Vande Mataram, a new Centre scheme for lithium and nickel processing, the evolution of Yemen's Houthis from a local revivalist movement to a Red Sea power, and the global semiconductor 'supercycle' driven by AI demand. Each story is mapped to UPSC syllabus with previous year questions.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court to Examine Proportionality of Facial Recognition System in Delhi Protest

The Supreme Court will examine the proportionality of facial recognition technology used by Delhi Police during a student protest, raising critical questions about privacy, surveillance, and the balance between security and civil liberties. This has implications for the legal framework governing biometric surveillance in India.

Polity Current Affairs

Vitraya Tech Moves SC for CBI Probe into Health Data Breach by Competitors

A health insurance firm, Vitraya Technologies, has petitioned the Supreme Court alleging a coordinated cyber attack by competitors led to a massive data breach of sensitive customer information including Aadhaar and medical records. The company claims the Punjab Police registered an FIR after a six-month delay in a 'mechanical' manner, failing to investigate the named perpetrators. The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Centre, CBI, and Punjab government, making this a significant case on data privacy, corporate cybercrime, and investigative accountability.

Polity Current Affairs

Delhi Police Affidavit in SC: Facial Recognition Identifies 2,873 Criminals at Jantar Mantar Protest

Delhi Police has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its use of facial recognition technology during the Jantar Mantar protest, claiming it only identifies individuals with prior criminal records. The SC is hearing petitions alleging excessive force. This case is crucial for understanding the legal framework around surveillance technology and privacy rights in India.

Environment Current Affairs

SC Directs Disconnection of Power/Water for Non-Compliant Bulk Waste Generators Under SWM Rules 2026

The Supreme Court has empowered District Collectors to order temporary disconnection of power and water supply for Bulk Waste Generators (BWGs) that fail to comply with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026. This landmark directive also mandates integrating waste management education into school and college curricula, making students 'household-level supervisors' for rule implementation.

Environment Current Affairs

Madras HC Confers Legal Personhood on Tamirabharani River via Deity Status to Bypass SC Ruling

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that the Tamirabharani river can be treated as a legal person by categorising it as a deity, effectively circumventing the Supreme Court's 2023 decision that non-human entities cannot be granted legal personhood. This allows the court to enforce pollution control measures against religious waste dumping, balancing Article 25 (religious freedom) and Article 21 (right to healthy environment).

Start Today's Quiz(15 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

15 Qs • 5-7 Mins

SHANTI Act Caps Nuclear Operator Liability Rs 100 Cr to Rs 3000 Cr, Supreme Court Hearing Constitutional Challenge

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Constitutional Challenge

Liability Framework Shift

Financial Risk Transfer

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance