India’s SHANTI Bill and the World’s energy future

Across the world, nuclear energy is once again being spoken of as a cornerstone of the clean energy transition. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) projects that global nuclear capacity could double by 2050, reaching between 561 and 992 gigawatts depending on investment levels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has reported a fifty per cent rise in nuclear investment over the past five years, with annual spending now exceeding seventy billion dollars.

This renewed interest is driven by the urgent need to cut carbon emissions while ensuring reliable electricity supply. Countries such as China, India, and Russia are leading with ambitious reactor programmes, while France, the United Kingdom, and several Eastern European nations are reaffirming nuclear as central to their energy mix. At the same time, Germany has exited nuclear power entirely, highlighting the divergence in global approaches.

Technological innovation is also reshaping the sector. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), designed to be safer, cheaper, and more flexible, are gaining traction in Europe and North America. Nuclear is increasingly seen as a partner to renewables, providing stable baseload power when solar and wind fluctuate. In short, the world is heading towards a nuclear revival, though the pace and scale vary sharply across regions.

India’s SHANTI Bill, 2025

India has placed itself firmly in the middle of this global revival with the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025. Passed in the Lok Sabha amid opposition walkouts, the bill repeals the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010, replacing them with a unified framework.

The government argues that the bill is essential to achieve India’s target of one hundred gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2047. It opens the nuclear sector to private and foreign participation, streamlines regulation, and strengthens the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s oversight powers. Officials claim this will attract investment, accelerate capacity expansion, and align India with global norms.

Criticisms of the SHANTI Bill

Opposition parties and experts have raised sharp criticisms. The most pressing concern is the dilution of liability. By shifting accident liability to contractual terms, the bill could allow suppliers and private operators to escape responsibility, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden.

Critics also argue that the bill represents a corporate push, prioritising private and foreign companies over public interest. The lack of parliamentary scrutiny—passed by voice vote without committee review—has been condemned as reckless for such a sensitive sector.

Safety concerns loom large. Opponents fear that loosening liability norms undermines the safety culture, especially when profit motives enter the equation. As Dr M.V. Ramana of the University of British Columbia warns: “After Fukushima, many countries tightened liability frameworks. India appears to be loosening them.”

Government’s Defence

The government insists the bill is a landmark reform. It argues that ending the state monopoly will bring in global expertise and advanced technology, while empowering regulators ensures safety. Officials highlight that shielding suppliers from liability aligns India with international standards, encouraging partnerships with companies such as Westinghouse, EDF, and Rosatom.

Supporters see the bill as a turning point. Dr Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment has remarked: “If India wants to scale up capacity quickly, opening the sector to private participation is a logical step.”

The Broader Debate: Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

India’s debate mirrors the global conversation about nuclear power. On the positive side, nuclear plants produce virtually no greenhouse gases during operation, making them one of the cleanest large-scale energy sources. They provide constant baseload power, unlike intermittent renewables, and their fuel is incredibly energy dense: a small amount of uranium generates vast amounts of electricity. Nuclear power also reduces dependence on imported fossil fuels, strengthening energy security.

Yet the negatives are equally stark. Catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima show the dangers. Radioactive waste remains hazardous for thousands of years, and safe long-term storage solutions are scarce. Construction and decommissioning are extremely expensive compared to renewables. Nuclear materials can be misused for weapons or terrorism, raising proliferation risks. And shutting down plants takes decades, often leaving land unusable for generations.

The Heavy Risks Behind the Promise

While nuclear energy offers low-carbon electricity and reliable supply, it is not a quick or simple solution. Setting up a nuclear plant requires intensive capital investment, lengthy clearances, and decades of planning and construction. Unlike solar or wind farms, nuclear projects demand vast resources before a single unit of power is generated.

More importantly, the risks are heavily set against all. Unless the issues of decommissioning, safety, accountability, proliferation, and weaponisation are given absolute primacy, the benefits may still be outweighed by the concerns.

Decommissioning is particularly daunting. Shutting down reactors can render land, water, and air unsafe or unusable for decades. The technical complexity and radioactive waste involved make decommissioning one of the most challenging tasks in energy policy. Safety is another critical concern. Even rare accidents carry catastrophic consequences, as seen at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Public trust hinges on auditable, transparent safety standards. Accountability is equally vital. Liability frameworks must protect citizens, not shield corporations. Diluting responsibility risks leaving ordinary people vulnerable. And proliferation remains a shadow over civilian nuclear programmes. Without strict oversight, technology can be diverted towards weapons development, destabilising global security.

This is why experts stress that nuclear energy must be pursued with auditable security and uncompromising accountability. Without these safeguards, the promise of clean energy could be overshadowed by the peril of long-term contamination and geopolitical risk.

Decommissioning Struggles Worldwide

Examples from leading economies highlight the challenges. Germany, after shutting down its last reactors in 2023, faces dismantling and waste storage that will extend well into the next century. Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi remains the world’s most complex decommissioning project, with full-scale operations delayed until at least 2037. The United States has made progress, but projects like Three Mile Island show the immense costs and technical hurdles involved.

These cases underline why decommissioning is one of the most persistent criticisms of nuclear energy. It is not simply a matter of turning off the switch; it is a multi-decade engineering, financial, and political challenge.

The Need for Greater, Auditable Security

Whether expanding or phasing out nuclear power, one theme is clear: security and accountability must be auditable and transparent. Nuclear energy carries risks that demand rigorous oversight. Independent regulators must be empowered, liability frameworks must protect citizens, and waste management must be addressed with long-term solutions.

The SHANTI Bill’s critics argue that India risks undermining these safeguards. Supporters counter that modernisation and private participation are essential for growth. Both sides agree, however, that nuclear energy cannot succeed without robust, transparent, and enforceable safety standards.

Conclusion: A Delicate Balance

The world is heading towards a nuclear revival, driven by climate urgency and energy security needs. India’s SHANTI Bill places it at the centre of this movement, promising rapid expansion but raising concerns about liability and safety.

Global experts remain divided. Some see nuclear as indispensable for decarbonisation, while others warn of catastrophic risks and unresolved waste problems. The truth lies in balance: nuclear energy can play a vital role, but only if auditable security, accountability, and public trust are placed at the heart of policy.

As nations chart their energy futures, nuclear power stands as both a promise and a peril. The challenge is not whether to embrace it, but how to do so responsibly.

 (Views are personal.)

(The writer is a retired officer of the Indian Information Service and a former Editor-in-Charge of DD News and AIR News (Akashvani), India’s national broadcasters. I have also served as an international media consultant with UNICEF Nigeria and been contributing regularly to various publications)