The Supreme Court on Monday sought details on nuclear regulators across the world, including in the US, on a petition demanding a safety re-assessment and cost-benefit analysis of India's nuclear facilities by an independent expert body.
A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Mr S.H. Kapadia, granted four weeks' time for the petitioners to submit the details on nuclear regulatory models in different countries, their functioning and the nature of independence.
The court also told the petitioners that a public debate could be started on the issue of nuclear safety and the nature of independence of the nuclear regulator during the meantime.
The petitioners include the NGOs Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation as well as some prominent citizens such as former Cabinet Secretary, Mr T.S.R. Subramanian.
Questioning the safety of the nuclear reactors in the country, advocate Mr Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, said the country was sitting on a time-bomb which can explode anytime.
He said a reckless expansion of nuclear energy could have disastrous consequences for the people and, therefore, violates their right to life and clean environment, adding that a nuclear accident can affect lakhs of people.
Functional independence
Citing a report by former Chairperson of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and a renowned nuclear scientist Dr A. Gopalakrishnan, Mr Bhushan said the current regulator – the AERB – does not have full functional independence.
The apex court said, “We are not saying that the matter is not important. We are fully conscious of the right to life (guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21) and (the impact of a nuclear accident on) the lives of the people.”
“What we want to know is what sort of structure or mechanism should a nuclear regulator have. Please show us what is the nature of independence or autonomy that you are seeking for AERB?,” the court said.
However, the apex court indicated that it does not want to interfere in the domain of the executive or legislature.
“As far as the safety of the lives of the people is concerned, Article 21 is there. But there are some other issues as well which is not for the courts to decide. They may be issues of policy. We cannot convert the Supreme Court to a Government or Parliament,” the court said.
Asking the petitioners to come to it with a solution to the issue, the court said, “We will certainly recommend it to the Government. But at the end of the day, it will only be a recommendation.”