What SHANTI Bill means to regional energy security

The Atomic Energy Bill 2025, christened SHANTI (Sustainable Harnessing of Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India), represents more than legislative reform. It is a recognition that India's energy future cannot be built on a centralised monopoly designed for a different era. While the bill's implications extend from Maharashtra's Tarapur to Gujarat's Kakrapar, the southern states offer the clearest evidence that this transformation is overdue. 

Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are not merely seeking additional power; they are demanding the energy infrastructure their economic ambitions require. Karnataka targets a $1 trillion economy by 2035, Tamil Nadu aims for $1 trillion by 2030 and $2.6 trillion by 2047. These are not aspirational numbers; they are a necessity. Bengaluru's tech parks consume 40% of Karnataka's commercial power. Chennai produces one-third of India's automobiles. Neither can afford the peak-hour deficits that persist despite hosting Kaiga's world-record 962-day continuous operation and Kudankulam's 2,000 MW capacity. 

The data centre boom crystallises this urgency. Hyderabad, Bengaluru, and Chennai are emerging as major hubs for Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. A single large facility demands 50-100 MW continuously with near-zero downtime tolerance. As AI workloads intensify and India positions itself as a global cloud infrastructure destination, the question is not whether we need nuclear power but whether we can deploy it fast enough. Intermittent renewables, however impressive, cannot meet this demand alone. 

The SHANTI Bill's opening to private participation (from uranium mining to reactor operation) is the necessary response. The 100 GW target by 2047 requires capital and innovation that the public sector alone cannot mobilise. Small Modular Reactors can be deployed in industrial clusters such as Hosur or Visakhapatnam without requiring extensive transmission infrastructure. This is not privatisation for ideology's sake but pragmatism for survival. 

The legitimate concern is obvious: can private entities be trusted with nuclear safety and sensitive technologies? The answer lies in intelligent regulatory design, not blanket prohibitions. 

The bill draws clear boundaries. Private entities can build and operate plants under strict licensing, but enrichment beyond notified limits, spent fuel reprocessing, and high-level waste management remain state monopolies. This is non-negotiable. Sensitive technologies must stay under central oversight—a sovereignty imperative in the nuclear domain. National security

licensing provisions prevent ownership by entities inimical to India's interests. This framework allows capital and innovation to flow while keeping strategic control where it belongs. 

Safety through institutional architecture 

The four-tier dispute resolution system deserves careful examination because it reveals the bill's underlying philosophy: safety through structure, not hope. 

First tier: Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). This is India's primary nuclear safety regulator, responsible for licensing and oversight. All disputes begin here. The regulator's technical expertise is essential, but it cannot be the final judge of its own decisions. 

Second tier: Atomic Energy Redressal Advisory Council (AERAC). Created under Section 47 as a specialised statutory body, AERAC conducts independent reviews of regulatory decisions. Its chairperson, appointed by the Central Government, brings institutional authority while maintaining national security vetting. Critically, Section 48 mandates a 60-day resolution window. This prevents the project-killing delays that plague Indian infrastructure while maintaining due process.

Third tier: Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Section 51). The tribunal operates under the same 60-day mandate. But what makes this tier crucial is Section 50's composition requirement: technical members with specialised knowledge in nuclear energy, radiation safety, and nuclear science must sit alongside judicial members. This is not a bureaucratic detail. Nuclear disputes involve reactor physics, safety margins, and radiation exposure limits — questions that legal interpretation alone cannot resolve. Technical members ensure decisions are grounded in scientific reality, not just procedural compliance.

Fourth tier: Supreme Court. Constitutional review ensures fundamental rights protection. This is the ultimate safeguard against both regulatory overreach and uninformed judicial intervention. 

This architecture is sophisticated precisely because nuclear power demands it. For private investors committing thousands of crores to projects spanning decades, this time-bound, technically informed adjudication provides bankability. For citizens concerned about safety, it ensures expert evaluation at every level, with judicial oversight to prevent regulatory capture. 

Pragmatism over posturing 

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 emerged from the shadow of Bhopal and civil society's insistence on supplier accountability. Its intentions were admirable. Its effects were counterproductive, deterring private participation without strengthening victim protection. 

The SHANTI Bill's framework is more honest. It establishes a Rs 3,000 crore liability cap per incident. Operators remain fully liable, with the Central Government covering amounts beyond this threshold through the Convention on Supplementary Compensation. Operator recourse against suppliers is permitted only when explicitly contracted or in cases of intentional damage. 

This is not about protecting corporations at the expense of citizens. Victims receive swift, direct compensation backed by a sovereign guarantee without navigating complex legal chains. What changes is alignment with international norms that make vendor participation feasible. Without this pragmatism, the proposed nuclear parks remain nothing more than paper plans. India's energy future cannot be hostage to liability ambiguity that deters investment while not meaningfully protecting anyone.

Tamil Nadu leads the nation in wind power but requires a baseload complement to address solar intermittency and maintain grid stability. Karnataka's Tier-2 cities need power for industrial dispersal beyond Bengaluru: Andhra Pradesh's manufacturing ambitions and Telangana's data centre boom demand carbon-free, reliable electricity at scale. 

The SHANTI Bill enables multiple reactor technologies: pressurised heavy-water reactors leveraging India's thorium reserves, light-water reactors for rapid deployment, and advanced modular designs for distributed clusters. Regional manufacturing ecosystems—from Bengaluru's tech sector to Chennai's automotive industry—can now enter nuclear equipment fabrication, creating engineering corridors rivalling global centres. 

The legislative foundation is laid. For the region's climate commitments and economic aspirations, nuclear power is not optional. The question is whether implementation will match ambition, particularly with respect to safety, transparency, and a futuristic vision.