Supreme Court holds back order on nuclear safety PIL

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to give any direction to the government on the appointment of an independent regulatory body to oversee nuclear plants, saying it cannot “convert this court into Parliament“. The court, however, kept the issue open by asking those against the construction of such plants to come out with the solution on nuclear safety through a “public debate” and assured them that it will “look into it”.

A bench comprising Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justice AK Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar asked the petitioners, an NGO -- Common Cause -- and others to furnish within four weeks the details on the models adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada and other countries on the appointment of the regulatory body, independent of the government and establishments, to monitor the safety of nuclear plants.

The court said it was conscious of the fact that the matter was important as it concerns Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution but expressed reservation in l ooking into the safety aspect of all nuclear plants for its lack of expertise. “So far as safety of public is concerned, Article 21 is in our mind which can certainly be argued, but for other aspect we cannot convert this court into Parliament,” it said.

At the outset of the hearing, when the bench wanted to know if any bill on the issue was before Parliament, advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of petitioners replied, there was one but not connected with the issue of an independent regulatory body. The PIL has sought the court’s direction for halting construction of all proposed nuclear power plants in the country till their proper security assessment is done by an independent body.

During the arguments, Bhushan said people of the country were sitting on a “time bomb” which can explode any time and mentioned an article written by eminent nuclear scientist A Gopalkrishnan, who is also an expert in nuclear safety and in the past chaired the convention on nuclear safety to which India was a signatory.

At this submission, the bench asked, “When he was a chairperson, why didn’t he insist for nuclear safety. What kind of independent regulator he is suggesting? We want a solution till Parliament makes a law.. While Bhushan was answering the court’s questions, attorney general Goolma Vahanvati on behalf of the Centre said, it was for the government to look into the issue of appointment of the regulatory body.

When the argument was made that the regulator has to be independent of the government, the bench said most of the scientists in India are government employees. Bhushan referred to the model adopted by the US for appointment of the regulator.