Seeking to avert trouble from the Opposition, the Centre on Monday deferred introduction in the Lok Sabha of nuclear liability bill that provides for compensation in the event of an accident and indicated that it could be delayed till the second half of the Budget Session next month.
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010, a key step in operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal, was listed for introduction in the House but at the last moment the government said it was not going ahead with it today.
"I have a request from the Minister Prithviraj Chavan that government does not intend to introduce the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill today," Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar announced in the House.
This triggered protests from the opposition with NDA Working Chairman L K Advani asking the government to tell the House why the Bill was deferred suddenly.
Pointing out that the Bill was important part of business of the day, Advani said, "The government should tell the House why it is not introducing the bill. Government should tell the House whether it has a re-think on it or whether they are not introducing because of opposition to the bill," he said.
While there was no response from the government to this in the House, Chavan later told reporters that the Bill was deferred as members had raised objections. "Government will try to meet these objections formally or informally," he said. Indicating that it would not be introduced in the first half of the Budget Session that ends tomorrow, he said, "There is no urgency to introduce the bill". The decision to defer the bill came as Left parties had declared their intention to oppose its introduction citing certain objections to its contents.
Responding to Left parties' demand that the Bill should be referred to Parliamentary Standing Committee, Chavan said it was the right of the House to do so.
He justified the bill saying there was no law at present that governs award of compensation in event of a nuclear accident. India could even tap international funds to provide compensation in such event if it becomes party to the international convention in this regard, Chavan said.
Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj demanded that since the matter was listed, a motion had to be moved for withdrawal of the Bill from the agenda.
The Speaker, however, rejected the demand saying such a motion cannot be moved as the bill has not been introduced in the House.
Objecting to the government's decision, Swaraj said, "The House does not run by the intention of the government but by rules of the House."
Left parties have dubbed the Bill as "a harmful piece of legislation meant to serve the interests of the United States and its nuclear industry."
Describing the legislation as "an outcome of the India-US nuclear deal", they said, "The government is seeking to fulfil a hidden commitment to deliver the legislation that safeguards the interests of the United States at the expense of the safety of Indian people." The BJP has said it had "serious reservations" on the bill "since it caps the liability of American firms".
The Left parties said that under the proposed legislation all the liability would fall upon the operator which is state-owned the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). The operator's liability has been fixed at Rs 300 crore, while the overall liability is capped at Rs 2,200 crore.
"This means the government will have to foot the bill for the rest of the amount. Since the NPCIL is a public sector enterprise, the whole bill is to be footed by the Indian taxpayer, while the US supplier goes scot-free," the Left parties said. Enactment of the liability law is one of the three key requirements because of which the Indo-US nuclear deal, concluded in September 2008, could not be operationalised so far.
The other two requirements are setting up of a dedicated reprocessing facility under IAEA safeguards and declaration by India on non-proliferation.
National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon had met BJP leader Arun Jaitley last week to brief him about the bill, but the main opposition is yet to have all its concerns addressed.
According to the provisions in the draft legislation, the operator would not be liable for any nuclear damage if the incident was caused by "grave national disaster of exceptional character", armed conflict or act of terrorism and suffered by person on account of his own negligence.
The bill also provides for establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission which will have one or more claims commissioners for a specified area. The claims commissioner shall have all powers of a civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents and other material objects.
