New Delhi: Even as the Lok Sabha passed the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025—a bill that aims to end the decades-long state monopoly on nuclear power and enables the sector’s privatization—the Opposition Member of Parliaments (MPs) have not just staged a walkout from the lower house but also raised serious concerns about ‘loopholes’.
‘Nuclear bill or unclear bill?’
“The SHANTI Bill is a milestone Mr. minister but for the wrong reasons….it is heavy on discretion and largely indifferent to public welfare. I am not sure Mr. Chairman, whether it is a nuclear bill or an unclear bill,” said Shashi Tharoor, while addressing the lower house, as reported by the PTI. The bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on Monday by the MoS for department of atomic energy Jitendra Singh, the TOI reported. Claiming that the bill has ‘fundamental structural flaws’, Tharoor emphasised that the Bill needs ‘comprehensive reworking’ and not just ‘cosmetic amendments.’ He stressed that ‘ideally the Bill should have been referred to a standing committee or a joint Parliamentary committee’ for further discussion.
The Opposition, as stated by Congress MP Manish Tiwari while speaking to ANI, has failed to address ‘Why a supplier would not be liable for a faulty product, in case of a nuclear incident or accident?’
My speech in Parliament today on the nuclear-related SHANTI Bill: https://t.co/12aEveoI0n
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) December 17, 2025
“Why absolving nuclear suppliers?”
“Where is the pressure coming from to completely absolve the nuclear suppliers? It’s inexplicable that in a matter as serious as nuclear energy, to completely give a pass to the suppliers is something which is completely unheard of,” Tiwari told ANI.
“Privatise profit, but socialise liability?”
The Opposition also alleged that the bill would ‘privatise profit, but socialise liability.’ “…That you will not make private companies liable for their actions but Govt will take the responsibility for that. This is unprecedented. You are turning the whole concept of a democratic welfare state on its head. That’s why, because there were no satisfactory answers, the Opposition walked out of the Lok Sabha in protest,” Tiwari added.
Tharoor reminds LS of Nehru & Manmohan Singh’s contributions
While opposing the bill in the lower house, Tharoor highlighted that India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had laid the foundation to the country’s nuclear program, and former PM Manmohan Singh had taken the 2008 Indo-US nuclear deal across the last mile. Tharoor claimed that the bill was “a disappointing reversal” of the steps taken in the past.
‘Can nuclear energy be termed as clean?’
Another major concern that has been highlighted by Tharoor is the nature of language of the Bill that allegedly seems ‘misleading.’ He claimed that the preamble of the bill, which describes nuclear energy as a “a clean and abundant source for electricity and hydrogen production”, was “dangerously misleading.” “The full life cycle of nuclear fuel from mining to waste disposal is neither clean nor sustainable. We must be honest with the people of India…” Tharoor said.
“Why one entity to get license for multiple nuclear activities?”
“The bill allows single composite license for multiple activities across the nuclear fuel cycle. This means one entity could control mining, fuel fabrication, reactor operation and waste handling. Such concentration of control in any single operator or corporate group heightens systemic risk exponentially rather than containing it….” Tharoor said, claiming that giving such control to private players, who are driven by profits, significantly raises the risk of nuclear incidents or accidents. The minister also alleged that the bill dilutes corporate accountability for systemic failures and instead the public money is put at stake.
Some other concerns highlighted by Tharoor:
Inadequacy of compensation mechanisms: The MP highlighted that despite global inflation and ‘hard lessons from nuclear disasters such as Fukushima’, the compensation cap under the Bill remains pegged at around Rs 3,900 crore. He also criticised the proposal to limit the period for filing claims to 10-20 years. The MP argued that this would deny justice to victims as radiation-induced illnesses often surface much later.
‘Legal trapdoor’ for communities: Tharoor also raised objections to provisions that vest the power to file criminal complaints against defaulting operators solely with the Centre. According to him, this would deny affected communities and would also deprive them of their right to independently seek legal redress. “The strength of a law is measured not by intent alone, but by how it protects the most vulnerable,” Tharoor told the House.
‘RTI not allowed?’
NCP (Sharad Pawar) MP Supriya Sule had questioned the government on privatising the PSU of Nuclear Power Corporation of India, when it is profitable, reported The New Indian Express. Supriya also highlighted that the Right To Information (RTI) Act 2005 is partially not allowed in the new Bill.
Counter view: Here’s What The Govt Says?
“The Bill seeks to modernise India’s nuclear framework in line with contemporary technological, economic and energy realities, while retaining and strengthening core safety, security and regulatory safeguards that have been in place since the Atomic Energy Act of 1962,” minister Jitendra Singh said, claiming that the proposed legislation consolidates existing laws and upgrades the regulatory architecture by giving statutory status to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, which until now functioned through an executive order.
He stressed that safety norms, security controls over fissile material, spent fuel and heavy water, and periodic inspections remain firmly under government oversight, regardless of private participation. The Minister clarified that private entities will not have control over sensitive materials, and that spent fuel management will continue to be handled by the government, as has been the practice for decades.
On liability, the Minister said the Bill does not dilute compensation to victims. He explained that operator liability has been rationalised through graded caps linked to reactor size to encourage newer technologies such as small modular reactors, while ensuring that full compensation is available to affected persons through a multi-layered mechanism.
Singh also rejected the view that the Bill signals a retreat from public sector capability, pointing to a nearly 170 per cent increase in the Department of Atomic Energy’s budget over the past decade and a doubling of installed nuclear capacity since 2014.