-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
India’s SHANTI Bill rewrites nuclear governance, but its success hinges not on reform alone—only execution will decide whether it unlocks capacity or repeats past delays
India’s SHANTI Bill represents the most significant overhaul of the country’s nuclear governance since the Atomic Energy Act of 1962, designed for an era of autarky and technological isolation when state monopoly was both an ideological and practical necessity. Over six decades, this framework safeguarded sensitive technologies and preserved strategic autonomy, but it also constrained nuclear power to less than 2 percent of India’s electricity mix, despite the fact that proven reactor technology and operational expertise have been the primary barrier to growth.
The SHANTI Bill (Sustainable Harnessing of Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India) is India’s nuclear equivalent of the 1991 economic reforms. It is a structural reform, not mere deregulation, recognising that strategic sectors must adapt to climate imperatives, capital constraints, and the physics of scale. The legislation allows private participation in commercial nuclear sectors while maintaining strategic control over critical fuel-cycle technologies, thus increasing construction capacity without compromising sovereignty.
India’s SHANTI Bill represents the most significant overhaul of the country’s nuclear governance since the Atomic Energy Act of 1962.
Yet, the true test lies ahead, whether India can convert this legal architecture into bankable projects, credible regulation, and reactors delivered on time and at scale, or whether SHANTI will be remembered as another well-intentioned reform that failed to shift the sector’s trajectory.
India expects to commission indigenous Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) by 2033, with government plans to boost this sector as part of the Atmanirbhar Bharat vision. This timeline creates a critical eight-year vacuum during which foreign manufacturers will aggressively market their technologies to newly empowered private entities. Private Indian companies and industrial consumers eager to establish nuclear capacity are unlikely to wait nearly a decade for unproven indigenous designs when foreign alternatives, already commercially deployed in other markets, may appear less risky.
India's track record counsels scepticism. The Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam, originally scheduled for 2010 commissioning, has yet to reach criticality and remains decades behind schedule. If India struggles with technologies it has developed over decades, believing it will successfully deploy commercially viable SMRs by 2033 requires considerable optimism, especially when even advanced nuclear nations face setbacks. NuScale, the most advanced Western SMR design, has faced project cancellations due to escalating costs.
By 2033, the market may be locked into foreign technology platforms. Early adopters will establish long-term fuel supply contracts, develop operator training programmes, and shape regulatory familiarity around their chosen technologies. Network effects and switching costs will favour these early entrants. The strategic risk is acute: indigenous SMRs may arrive late or prove uncompetitive, while the intervening years see India's nuclear sector become structurally dependent on foreign designs, equipment, and fuel supplies—exactly the vulnerability the indigenous programme seeks to avoid.
The single-operator model has been the fundamental constraint on nuclear expansion. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), bound by government budgetary allocations, must compete for capital with every other development priority. Adding 100 GW of capacity would require simultaneous management of dozens of reactor projects, each with multi-decade timelines—a bandwidth NPCIL simply does not possess. NPCIL currently operates seven reactors under construction. Kakrapar-3, though eventually commissioned in 2021, took over a decade from first concrete to grid connection. The Kudankulam expansion continues to face delays, with units 3 and 4 still years behind original schedules. Rajasthan units 8, announced in 2011, remain under construction. Managing 30-40 reactor projects simultaneously—the scale required for 100 GW would demand organisational capacity an order of magnitude beyond NPCIL's demonstrated execution ability.
This is not privatisation of nuclear sovereignty but a recognition that the state can focus resources on strategic fuel-cycle development while leveraging private capital for capacity expansion.
Private participation multiplies this capacity without compromising strategic autonomy. Lack of competition under the single-operator model has also entrenched inefficiencies, with no competitive pressure on cost control, timeline adherence, or operational excellence. Multiple private operators introduce performance benchmarking and efficiency incentives absent in a monopoly structure. Multiple operators can pursue parallel construction schedules, mobilise private capital markets, and establish diverse supply chains. The Bill reserves enrichment beyond specified limits, spent fuel reprocessing, heavy water production, and other proliferation-sensitive activities exclusively for government entities. The three-stage programme remains entirely under state control. What opens to private participation is the commercial layer: power generation and reactor operation under stringent regulatory oversight.
This is not privatisation of nuclear sovereignty but a recognition that the state can focus resources on strategic fuel-cycle development while leveraging private capital for capacity expansion. Yet private capital flows only where regulatory frameworks inspire confidence, which brings us to SHANTI's most significant institutional innovation.
The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has long operated under institutional ambiguity. Both AERB and the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) report to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). While technically separate entities under the AEC umbrella, this shared governance structure creates inherent tension. The same institutional authority oversees both nuclear promotion (through DAE) and nuclear regulation (through AERB). International best practice, as evident in the United States (US) Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the United Kingdom (UK) Office for Nuclear Regulation, demands complete institutional separation. No private operator will commit billions to a project where the regulator shares governance with the entity promoting nuclear expansion.
Statutory independence and functional independence are not identical, and the effectiveness of this reform will depend on implementation rather than legislative language alone.
The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011, sought to address this by creating an independent statutory regulator. However, it lapsed without passage. The regulatory independence dilemma has thus remained unresolved for over a decade. SHANTI now grants statutory independence to AERB, formally elevating it beyond its subordinate position under the AEC umbrella. Yet whether this translates to genuine operational autonomy in practice remains an open question—statutory independence and functional independence are not identical, and the effectiveness of this reform will depend on implementation rather than legislative language alone.
Beyond addressing regulatory independence, the bill introduces significant procedural innovation: the creation of the Atomic Energy Redressal Advisory Council and a four-tier adjudication architecture. At the foundation sits AERB, serving as the domestic safety regulator, alongside conducting inspections and enforcing compliance with domestic standards and IAEA protocols. The second tier introduces AERAC, chaired by a Chairperson appointed by the Central Government, serving as an expert review body for those disputing AERB determinations, with a 60-day application window ensuring procedural discipline. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, augmented with Technical Members specialising in nuclear energy and radiation safety, provides the third tier. The Supreme Court remains the final arbiter on substantial questions of law.
This matters because nuclear disputes involve radiation exposure limits, safety margins, and reactor physics—not purely legal questions. Time-bound adjudication provides the certainty investors require. For a company committing multi-million dollars to a reactor project, knowing that regulatory disputes will be resolved within defined timelines rather than languishing in courts for decades is essential for financial closure. However, effectiveness depends entirely on AERAC's actual independence from AEC influence and the quality of Technical Members appointed. Regulatory credibility cannot be legislated; it must be earned through consistent, transparent, and technically sound decision-making.
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, created unlimited, undefined risk for suppliers, making projects uninsurable despite India's membership in the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. Section 16 of SHANTI corrects this structural flaw. The provision for right of recourse applies only when explicitly incorporated into contracts or in cases of willful acts causing nuclear damage. Operators and suppliers can now negotiate risk-sharing arrangements reflecting specific technologies, while operators remain fully liable to victims. The willful misconduct provision distinguishes between accidents arising from unforeseen technical failures and those resulting from deliberate negligence—a distinction crucial for insurability.
Operators and suppliers can now negotiate risk-sharing arrangements reflecting specific technologies, while operators remain fully liable to victims.
The framework establishes a liability cap of 300 million Special Drawing Rights (approximately INR 3,000 crore) per nuclear incident, with a government backstop beyond this threshold and access to international CSC funds if needed. This is not a hard ceiling but a structured compensation mechanism aligning India with international practice. The US operates under the Price-Anderson Act with similar operator liability and government backstopping.
Nonetheless, what level of protection does this provide? The Fukushima disaster's estimated costs exceed US$200 billion. While India's reactor designs differ and such extreme scenarios remain unlikely, the 300 million SDR threshold would prove grossly inadequate in a worst-case event. The US Price-Anderson Act provides up to US$13 billion in coverage, significantly higher than India's framework. Yet the 300 million SDR cap serves a specific purpose: it makes projects financeable and insurable. This is the pragmatic trade-off the legislation makes—prioritising investment viability and international alignment over comprehensive victim compensation in tail-risk scenarios. The framework is sufficient to enable nuclear expansion; it is not sufficient to make victims whole in catastrophic events. Policymakers have chosen the former over the latter.
SHANTI removes capital constraints, multiplies construction bandwidth, and creates investable frameworks. But legislation alone does not build reactors. Grid readiness poses a concrete challenge: integrating 100 GW of baseload nuclear capacity requires massive transmission infrastructure and grid balancing capabilities. India's grid already struggles with renewable intermittency; adding large-scale nuclear capacity demands coordinated planning between power, transmission, and distribution utilities. Without this, reactors will be built, but they cannot deliver power effectively.
Yet even achieving 100 GW may prove inadequate, even though reaching this target would represent a formidable accomplishment. India's total installed electricity capacity today stands at approximately 450 GW, with nuclear power constituting roughly 8 GW, less than 2 percent of the portfolio. Government projections suggest total installed capacity would need to exceed 2,000 GW by 2047, driven by economic growth, urbanisation, and transport electrification. Even with 100 GW of nuclear capacity, it would constitute only 5 percent of the portfolio—a significant increase but still marginal in the broader energy transition context.
The SHANTI Bill represents sophisticated policy design: a four-tier adjudication mechanism ensuring regulatory certainty, a nuanced liability framework creating investable projects while maintaining public protection, and strategic delineation balancing commercial opportunity with security imperatives. Nevertheless, India's track record on nuclear timelines is poor. Reactors are commissioned years behind schedule; cost overruns are routine. SHANTI does not fix these underlying execution challenges— it creates legal space for others to try where NPCIL, burdened with monopoly responsibility, has struggled. The concentrated execution risk that comes with single-operator dependence has been a structural barrier; distributing project delivery across multiple private operators is precisely the solution that has proven effective in nuclear expansion elsewhere, from France to South Korea to China.
The opportunity is that SHANTI unleashes a decade of capacity expansion and commercial dynamism, its impact measured not in 2025 but in 2035 when reactors licensed under this framework begin powering India's industrial heartland.
Whether private operators prove more effective than NPCIL, whether indigenous SMRs can compete with foreign designs, and whether AERB can scale its regulatory capacity—these are empirical questions that will be answered over the next decade. Yet the success of this reform hinges equally on effective implementation of the bill itself: AERAC's actual constitution and independence, and whether statutory independence translates into genuine regulatory autonomy.
The risk is that SHANTI becomes a well-intentioned reform producing a few demonstration projects but ultimately failing to shift trajectory because implementation falters or non-legislative barriers prove insurmountable. The opportunity is that SHANTI unleashes a decade of capacity expansion and commercial dynamism, its impact measured not in 2025 but in 2035 when reactors licensed under this framework begin powering India's industrial heartland.
India's nuclear moment has arrived in the sense that legislative architecture is now in place. But legislative design and its implementation are different challenges entirely. The former has been achieved; the latter will determine whether this reform is remembered as the turning point that revived India's nuclear sector or as another missed opportunity in a history marked by underperformance.
Kavya Wadhwa is a nuclear energy advocate and policy analyst dedicated to promoting sustainable energy solutions and driving policy reforms.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Kavya Wadhwa is a nuclear energy advocate and policy analyst dedicated to promoting sustainable energy solutions and driving policy reforms. His research primarily focuses on ...
Read More +
PREV
