Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
Nilendra Kumar
Nilendra Kumar

The notions of absolute liability came in for discussion while the framing of The Civil Liability for Nuclear Bill, 2010 was under consideration by the Parliament in India. An exercise was undertaken to put forth requisite inputs to the civil society. The presentation was an effort in that direction.

1 of 12
The Nuclear Liability Bill A perspective by Maj. Gen. Nilendra Kumar Director, Amity Law School, Noida
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010
DEFICIENCIES • • • Lack of public debate Hasty drafting Text warrants relook
TRIGGER MECHANISM Issue of a notification by the AERB Clause 3(1)
No notification if threat and risk is insignificant. Clause 3(2) Questions 1. What is the scale for insignificant? 2. If no notification or no order, will it be a case of speaking order liable to be challenged on grounds of no application of mind?
Clause 2(l) Definition of an operator means a person. Will it extend to a corporate entity?
Clause 5 Provides a shelter to an operator from payment of compensation, if a nuclear damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to certain acts like terrorism. What if the operator contests his liability citing such pretext.
Clause 6(2) Power of the Central Government to increase the liability beyond Rs. 500 crore is based upon risk involved rather than damage caused.
Compensation may be demanded, amongst others, by the legal representative of the deceased (Clause 14). On the other hand, application for compensation has to be made by the person suffering damage. Clause 31(2)
Clause 6 The amount of liability of the operator shall not include any interest or cost of proceedings.
Scope for any appeal against an inadequate award rendered impracticable because the award is to be treated as final. Clauses 16(5) and 33(10)
RECOMMENDED 1. Review by the Standing Committee. 2. Seek public debate.

More Related Content

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010

  • 1. The Nuclear Liability Bill A perspective by Maj. Gen. Nilendra Kumar Director, Amity Law School, Noida
  • 2. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010
  • 3. DEFICIENCIES • • • Lack of public debate Hasty drafting Text warrants relook
  • 4. TRIGGER MECHANISM Issue of a notification by the AERB Clause 3(1)
  • 5. No notification if threat and risk is insignificant. Clause 3(2) Questions 1. What is the scale for insignificant? 2. If no notification or no order, will it be a case of speaking order liable to be challenged on grounds of no application of mind?
  • 6. Clause 2(l) Definition of an operator means a person. Will it extend to a corporate entity?
  • 7. Clause 5 Provides a shelter to an operator from payment of compensation, if a nuclear damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to certain acts like terrorism. What if the operator contests his liability citing such pretext.
  • 8. Clause 6(2) Power of the Central Government to increase the liability beyond Rs. 500 crore is based upon risk involved rather than damage caused.
  • 9. Compensation may be demanded, amongst others, by the legal representative of the deceased (Clause 14). On the other hand, application for compensation has to be made by the person suffering damage. Clause 31(2)
  • 10. Clause 6 The amount of liability of the operator shall not include any interest or cost of proceedings.
  • 11. Scope for any appeal against an inadequate award rendered impracticable because the award is to be treated as final. Clauses 16(5) and 33(10)
  • 12. RECOMMENDED 1. Review by the Standing Committee. 2. Seek public debate.