Any legislation governing nuclear energy inevitably attracts legal scrutiny, and the Nuclear Shanti Bill will be no exception. While the Bill is framed around safety and peaceful use, its real test will lie in how courts interpret its provisions against constitutional guarantees, environmental jurisprudence and established principles of administrative law.
A likely focal point of legal challenge is Article 21 of the Constitution – the right to life and personal liberty. Indian courts have consistently expanded this right to include the right to a clean environment, health and safety. In the context of nuclear facilities, courts may examine whether the Bill provides adequate preventive safeguards, emergency preparedness mechanisms and long-term health protections for surrounding populations.
Another key issue is liability. Nuclear incidents, even when rare, have consequences that are large-scale and long-lasting. Legal challenges may question whether the Bill clearly assigns responsibility in the event of an accident, or whether it shields operators and authorities behind complex regulatory structures. Indian jurisprudence has increasingly favoured the “polluter pays” principle, and any dilution of accountability could invite judicial intervention.
Transparency and access to information will also be central. Courts have repeatedly held that secrecy cannot be the default in matters affecting public safety. If the Shanti Bill limits disclosure of safety audits, risk assessments or emergency plans without clear justification, it may be tested against citizens’ right to know and participate in decisions that affect their lives.
Environmental law provides another important lens. India’s courts have developed a strong body of jurisprudence on precautionary principle and sustainable development. Petitioners may argue that nuclear expansion, even under a peace-oriented framework, must demonstrate strict adherence to environmental clearances, independent impact assessments and continuous monitoring.
The structure of regulatory oversight could also come under scrutiny. If the Bill concentrates excessive power in the executive or lacks sufficient independence for regulatory bodies, courts may seek to read in safeguards or mandate greater autonomy. Past judgments suggest that where technical expertise is involved, independence not insulation is key.
The fate of the Nuclear Shanti Bill will ultimately depend on whether it reassures both citizens and courts. In a constitutional democracy, nuclear peace is not defined by intent alone, but by enforceable safeguards, transparent governance and legal accountability. Courts are likely to play a crucial role in ensuring that the promise of peaceful nuclear power does not come at the expense of constitutional trust.