Dear ones
Here are the crux of the proposed draft which is going to be enacted as a Nuclear Liability Law to safe guard us against any nuclear disaster.Do you think that the law will realy protect us from the potential eventualities anything happen in near future.Go through the facts and rise your concern about this.
1)TThe meager amount of compensation laid down in case of a nuclear accident in the proposed bill, is capped at $ 450 million, which is way below the much critised compensation of $470 million, provided to victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (which was not a nuclear accident).
2)The Bill lays down a cap for the maximum financial liability at rupee equivalent of 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR), which is equal to $458 million (Rs. 2.087 crores). This is a meager amount when compared to the Price Anderson Act in the United States, which has created a pooled fund of $10.5 billion (Rs. 50,000 crores appox).
3)The Bill restricts the channeling of compensation. The bill lays down for legal channeling of liability according to which only the operator is responsible in case of a nuclear accident. No civil suits can be initiated against the suppliers or any other person for faulty design or faulty construction. However, countries like the United States lay down for the economic channeling of liability, which makes it possible for law suits to be initiated against anyone in the entire supply chain.
4)The Bill lays down that the operator is not liable for any damage in case the damage is caused by terrorism. This will limit the very purpose for which the Bill is being put in place that is to provide relief to victims of a disaster. Under the Vienna convention and the original Paris convention terrorism is not a ground for exoneration.4. The Bill limits the timeframe within which a claim can be initiated to 10 years. However, nuclear incidents can have trans generational effects which manifest over decades in future. In such cases it would become impossible to initiate claims if the 10 years cut off period is put in. The Paris Convention for example lays down 30 years as the cut off period.
5)Clause 17(b) of the Bill initially laid down the right of recourse for the operator in case of a nuclear accident against the suppliers for gross negligence. There is a recommendation from the department of Atomic Energy to dilute the clause further. This appears to be the government appearing to indemnify the supplier while burdening the taxpayer.
This is not the end if we go further it is more complex and more technical in terms which is understand only by the creaters of the law not we as a public of this great democracy.
Reciprocat with your views.
Thank you
