SHANTI Bill and India’s Nuclear Moment: Opportunity with Responsibility

Siddharth Roy

(siddharth001.roy@gmail.com)

The Union Cabinet’s approval of the SHANTI Bill, which allows private players to enter India’s nuclear energy sector, marks a significant shift in the country’s energy policy. For decades, nuclear power in India has remained the exclusive domain of the public sector, mainly under the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). By clearing the SHANTI Bill, the government has signalled its intent to modernize the sector, attract investment, accelerate clean energy generation, and meet India’s growing power needs. However, the move also raises important questions about safety, regulation, accountability, and public trust.

India stands at a critical energy crossroads. Rapid economic growth, urbanization, and rising living standards have sharply increased electricity demand. At the same time, climate commitments require India to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and expand clean energy sources. Solar and wind have grown rapidly, but their intermittent nature limits their ability to provide round-the-clock power. Nuclear energy, which offers stable, low-carbon baseload electricity, therefore occupies a crucial place in India’s long-term energy strategy. Yet, progress in nuclear capacity addition has been slow due to high costs, technology constraints, and limited public funding. The SHANTI Bill seeks to address these challenges by opening the sector to private participation.

Supporters of the Bill argue that private participation can bring much-needed capital, innovation, and efficiency. Nuclear projects require massive upfront investment and long construction periods, which strain public finances. Allowing private companies to invest, build, and operate nuclear facilities under strict government oversight could speed up project execution and reduce delays. Global experience shows that private participation, when well-regulated, can improve project management, introduce advanced technology, and lower costs over time. For India, which has ambitious clean energy targets, this could mean faster expansion of nuclear capacity and reduced carbon emissions.

Another key argument in favour of the SHANTI Bill is energy security. India imports a large share of its fossil fuels, making it vulnerable to global price shocks and geopolitical tensions. Expanding domestic nuclear power can reduce this dependence and provide long-term energy stability. Private participation could also help develop indigenous manufacturing capabilities for nuclear components, creating jobs and strengthening the domestic supply chain. In this sense, the Bill aligns with broader goals of self-reliance and industrial growth.

However, nuclear energy is unlike any other sector, and the concerns surrounding private entry are serious and cannot be brushed aside. Safety is the foremost issue. Nuclear accidents, though rare, can have devastating and long-lasting consequences for people, the environment, and the economy. Critics worry that private companies, driven by profit motives, may cut corners or compromise on safety standards. The government has assured that safety regulations will remain stringent and that private operators will be subject to rigorous oversight. Still, public confidence will depend not on assurances but on transparent laws, strong institutions, and strict enforcement.

Liability is another sensitive area. India’s existing nuclear liability framework was designed primarily for a public-sector-led model. Allowing private players raises questions about who will bear responsibility in the event of an accident. The SHANTI Bill must clearly define liability provisions to ensure that victims are adequately compensated and that accountability is fixed without ambiguity. Without a robust and fair liability regime, private participation could lead to legal disputes and erode public trust.

There is also the issue of regulatory capacity. A larger and more complex nuclear sector will require an equally strong and independent regulator. Regulatory bodies must have the technical expertise, manpower, and autonomy to monitor private operators effectively. Any perception of regulatory capture or weak oversight could undermine the credibility of the entire reform. Strengthening regulatory institutions should therefore go hand-in-hand with opening up the sector.

Environmental and social concerns also deserve attention. Nuclear plants require large tracts of land and water, often affecting local communities. Past experiences have shown that inadequate consultation and compensation can lead to prolonged protests and delays. With private companies involved, it becomes even more important to ensure transparent land acquisition processes, fair rehabilitation, and meaningful engagement with local residents. Nuclear energy cannot succeed if it is imposed without public consent. The political dimension of the SHANTI Bill is equally significant. Nuclear power has always been a sensitive subject in India, shaped by historical experiences, international agreements, and domestic debates. Allowing private participation may invite criticism from those who fear dilution of state control over a strategic sector. The government must therefore communicate clearly that private entry does not mean abdication of responsibility. The state will continue to set policy, enforce safety standards, and retain control over critical aspects of nuclear governance.

From a broader perspective, the SHANTI Bill reflects a pragmatic recognition that India’s energy challenges require new approaches. The old model, while successful in building foundational capacity, may not be sufficient to meet future demands. If implemented carefully, private participation can complement public efforts rather than replace them. The key lies in designing a framework that balances efficiency with safety, investment with accountability, and growth with public interest. As the Bill moves forward for parliamentary scrutiny, it is essential that lawmakers engage in a thorough and informed debate. Amendments may be needed to strengthen safeguards, clarify liability provisions, and reinforce regulatory independence. Public consultation and transparency will be crucial in building trust and avoiding misinformation.

In the final analysis, the SHANTI Bill is neither a cure-all nor a catastrophe. It is an opportunity, one that carries both promise and risk. If India gets the balance right, opening the nuclear sector to private players could help deliver clean, reliable energy while supporting economic growth and climate goals. If it gets it wrong, the consequences could be severe and lasting. The challenge before policymakers is to ensure that progress does not come at the cost of safety, accountability, or public confidence.