An insight into broader perspective on the Civil Liability for Nuclear

Damage Act (CLNDA)-2010

K.L. Ramakumar
Email: [email protected]

Presentation sequence:
 Brief Introduction to Nuclear energy
 International civil nuclear cooperation
 Need for a separate legislation
 Similar international instruments
 Taking stock of main points in CLND Act
 Salient Points

Leo Tolstoy: War and Peace

“Writing laws is easy, but governing is difficult.”
 What India needs

Energy security and energy independence What are the options?

Country needs to have ECG
For realising its GDP growth targets
directly linked to
“Make in India”, Energy efficient technologies
“Smart Cities”, Clean technologies
other related infrastructure development Green technologies
Environment-friendly and
For equitable pan-India growth in an eco-friendly energy sources
environmental friendly “climate” without
compromising our COP21 commitments
 April 10, 2019
The New York
Times
International
Edition
“Nuclear power
can save the
world”
Joshua S.
Goldstein
Staffan A.Qvist
Steven Pinker

Arbitrary grading: 3.75 3.50 6.75 5.5 6.25 5.5 3.75 6 5

 Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA)-2010
Need for separate legislation
In view of envisaged nuclear power growth, and possible spread of radioactivity over
large areas in case of an incident, howsoever rare, it was considered necessary to have
a legislation on civil liability for nuclear damage for providing prompt compensation to
the victims.
(10 years after the Bhopal gas tragedy, trial court was instituted and the verdict of the
trial court came after another 16 years for settling compensation to Bhopal gas tragedy
victims!!!)
Initiative by the Government of India to open international civil nuclear cooperation
with the objective to source uranium from international markets, and have access to
manufacturers of nuclear equipment abroad to accelerate the growth of nuclear
installed capacity in the country demanded India to be a party to one of the
international conventions on the subject.
 Now, to just recapture the subject you already know
The Indian Parliament has enacted the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010
(CLND Act) to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt
compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a non-fault liability
regime channelling liability to the operator, appointment of a Claims Commissioner,
establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
Subsequently the Rules for implementing the CLND Act were promulgated in 2011.
The CLND Act along with the Rules made thereunder constitute India's domestic
legislation and is required for ratification by India of the Convention on
Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) which was opened for
signatures at Vienna on September 29, 1997 at the 41st General Conference of the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
India signed Convention in 2010 and ratified in 2016 affirming at the same time that
the Act is compliant with the Annex to the Convention.
 Civil liability for nuclear damage: International regimes

Paris Convention (OECD NEA) : 1960

The Brussels Supplementary Convention : 1963
provides for additional compensation in case the operator’s coverage under Paris
Convention was inadequate
Vienna Convention (IAEA) : 1963
Joint Protocol between the Paris and Vienna Convention 1988
linking their territorial scope.
Protocol to amend the Vienna Convention 1997
provides for broader scope, increased amount of liability of the operator, and
enhanced means for securing adequate and equitable compensation.
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) 1997
stand-alone convention not linked to the Paris or Vienna Convention

Price-Anderson Act 1957, Domestic legislation of the USA

 Taking stock of main points in CLND Act

There has been quite an exhaustive amount of opinions expressed on the provisions
of CLNDA.
Strident criticism to defensive arguments
Almost all of them missed out on the most significant aspect of the Act
namely its progressive nature.
The Act is here to stay and the Rules have been promulgated.
This presentation steers clear of the maze of criticism or defensive arguments
Focus is on taking stock of main elements of CLNDA

“What's Wrong with the World” by GK Chesterton:

“Most modern freedom is at root fear.
It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules;
it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities”.
 Basic principles of nuclear liability law
 The operator of a nuclear installation is exclusively liable for nuclear damage
 Strict (no fault) liability is imposed on the operator
 Exclusive jurisdiction is granted to the courts of one State, to the exclusion of the
courts in other States A Contracting Party which is not a
 Liability may be limited in amount and in time Party either to Paris Convention or to
1997 CSC enhanced them in three significant ways: Vienna Convention shall ensure that
 higher compensation its national legislation is consistent
 broader definition of nuclear damage; and with the provisions laid down in this
 updated jurisdiction rules Annex insofar as those provisions are
not directly applicable within that
Additionally Contracting Party.
 Compensation without discrimination based on nationality, domicile or residence
 Mandatory financial coverage of the operator's liability
CLNDA should be compliant with the Annex to CSC
India ratified CSC on 04 Feb 2016
Upon ratification: "The Government of the Republic of India, in
accordance with paragraph 1 of Article XVIII of the Convention, declares
that its national law complies with the provisions of the Annex to the
Convention; India has enacted the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act
of 2010 to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt
compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a no-fault
liability regime channelling liability to the operator, appointment of
Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims
Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 complies with the
provisions of the Annex to the Convention on Supplementary
Compensation for Nuclear Damage. (Please see: http://goo.gl/V7EvhJ).”
For compliance of CLNDA with CSC one should see:

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 (CLND Act)
The Rules for implementing the CLND Act
Ministry of External Affairs website: Frequently Asked Questions
and Answers on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 and
related issues, February 08, 2015
IAEA, The Convention on Supplementary Compensation for
Nuclear Damage (CSC) 1997
 Parameter CSC CLNDA
Installations covered Art. II.2; Annex, Arts 1(b); 1.2 Chapter 1, Sections 1 and 2
Geographical scope Art. V Chapter 1, Sections 1 and 2
Non-discrimination Art. III.2 Inference
Nuclear damage Art. I(f) Chapter 1, Sections 1 and 2
Incident in an installation Annex, Arts 3.1(a); 3.4; 3.7(a) and (b); 7.1; 7.3; 7.4 Chapter 2; Section 4
Incident during transport Annex, Arts 3.1(b) and (c); 3.2; 3.7(c); 7.2; 7.3; 7.4 Chapter 2, Section 4
Exclusive liability Annex, Arts 3.8; 3.9; 3.10 Chapter 2, Section 4
Causes of exoneration Annex, Arts 3.3; 3.5; 3.6 Chapter 2, Section 5
Right of recourse Art. IX; Annex, Arts 8.3; 10 Chapter 4, Section 17
Liability limits Annex, Arts 4; 6; 8.1 Chapter 2; Section 6
Insurance cover Annex, Art. 5 Chapter 2; Section 8
Public funds Art. III; Annex, Arts 4; 5; 8.1 Chapter 2, Section 7
Enforcement of rights of Art. X.2 Chapter 4, Sections 13-16
compensation
Nature, form and extent of Annex, Art. 11 Chapter 4, Sections 13-16
compensation
Time limits Annex, Art. 9 Chapter 4, Section 18
Jurisdiction Art. XIII.1–4 Chapter 3, Section 9 and
Chapter 5, Section 19
Applicable law Arts I.1(e); XIV; Annex, Art. 11 Chapter 1, Section 1
Recognition and Art. XIII.5–7 Chapter 5, Section 36
enforcement of judgements
 Main features of CLNDA in the context of CSC Expectations
CSC Expectations Provisions in CLNDA
Exclusive jurisdiction The Nuclear Claims Commissioner. Constitutional right to
approach the High Courts and the Supreme Court exists in
parallel.
Absolute (strict) liability No-fault liability. Section 4(4)
Chanelling of liability Liability channelled to the Operator (Section 4(1)) with
Operator’s right of recourse (Section 17) and
Citizens’ right under tort law(Section 46)
Limited liability in time Section 18: For damage to property, the time limit is 10 years.
For personal injury to any person, the time limit is 20 years
Other remedies for Section 46: Provides, that the provisions in the Act shall be, in
victims addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law, for the time
being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt the
operators from any proceedings which might, apart from this Act,
be instituted against such operators
 Issue CSC CLNDA
Operator’s National law may provide Section 17: The Operator of the nuclear
right of that the operator shall installation after paying the compensation for
recourse have a right of recourse nuclear damage in accordance with Section 6,
against the only: shall have a right to recourse where: –
supplier (1) if this is expressly (a) Such right is expressly provided for in a
provided for by a contract contract in writing;
in writing; or (b) The nuclear incident has resulted as a
(2) if the nuclear incident consequence of an act of suppliers or his
results from an act or employees, which includes supply of
omission done with intent equipment or material or patent or latent
to cause damage, against defects or sub-standard services;
the individual who has (c) The nuclear incident has resulted from the
acted or omitted to act act of commission or omission of an individual
with such intent. done with the intent to cause nuclear
damage.
 There are two very important and significant differences in the texts of CSC and CLNDA

1. The chapeau is different. This difference has profound significance in our interpretation of
paragraph 17 as a whole including the sub-clauses.
The chapeau of CSC merely says the Operator shall have right of recourse only if the two sub-
clauses are included in the national legislation. It is silent on the circumstances or the time
when the Operator shall have this right of recourse.
The chapeau of CLNDA is very clear. The Operator shall have the recourse only after he paid
the compensation. That means he has fulfilled his liability obligations flowing out of legal
chanelling (“exclusive, absolute and strict”). The CLNDA is very particular about this clause of
legal chanelling to the Operator.
What the Operator would or should do after fulfilling his legal obligations should not be
viewed as deviation from the provisions of CSC.
The moment the process of paying the compensation is complete, in my opinion legal
chanelling does not hold and is not applicable until (God forbid) a future incident. The
subsequent actions of the Operator should not be linked to legal chanelling.
2. Addition of 17(b) text.
Section 17(B) text:

Sub-clause (b) in Section 17 is a new inclusion in CLNDA. Let us analyse this.

Section 17 states that the operator shall have a right of recourse. It provides a substantive right to the
operator but it does not say the Operator shall exercise the right to recourse. It is not a mandatory but an
enabling provision.

The situations identified in Section 17(b) relate to actions and matters such as product liability
stipulations/conditions. These are ordinarily part of a contract between the operator and the supplier.
Thus, this provision is to be read along with/in the context of the relevant clause in the contract between
the operator and supplier on product liability. It is open for the operator and the supplier to agree on the
terms of their contract relying on the applicable law. The parties to a contract generally elaborate and
specify the extent of their obligations pursuant to warranty and indemnity clauses that are normally part
of such contracts.

Let us read again 17(a): Such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing. Merely mentioning the
phrase “Right of recourse” in the contract is not sufficient and is ludicrous for argument also. It should
clearly elaborate how this right of recourse, under what circumstances is exercised to complete the
process. Now read 17(b) along with the above explanation. It becomes clear as to why this enabling
provision is required.
 Rule 24 (Definition of Supplier)
1. Limitation of the Amount of Liability
Rule 24 sub-rule 1 provides that an operator’s liability will be restricted to the extent of the
operator’s liability (that is, the liability cannot exceed that which the operator itself incurs)
or the value of the contract with the supplier, whichever is less.
2. Limitation of the Time Period for Liability
Rule 24 sub-rule 2 provides that a right of recourse, as provided for in section 17 of the
CLNDA, will be available to an operator only for the duration of the initial license issued
under India’s Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 (about five years), or the
product liability period negotiated between the supplier and operator, whichever is longer.
Supplier shall include a person who:
(i) Manufactures and supplies either directly or through an agent, a system, equipment or
component or builds a structure in the basis of functional specification, or
(ii) Provides build to print or detailed design specifications to a vendor for manufacturing a
system, equipment or component or building a structure and is responsible to the
operator for design and quality assurance, or
(iii)Provides quality assurance or design services
Let us understand the term “supplier” in the Indian context from the definition as given in Rule
24
Any person/entity who designs the complete plant, develops build to print drawings or detailed
design specifications for equipment, components and systems required for a nuclear power
plant becomes supplier.
Indigenous PHWRs :
NPCIL designs, constructs and operates. Vendors only supply systems and equipment as per
detailed design specifications or ‘build to print’ drawings provided to them by NPCIL.
Manufacturing done by a vendor is subject to quality assurance by engineers belonging to NPCIL.
Hence NPCIL is the supplier as well as operator
Setting up of nuclear power plant by an operator in technical cooperation with vendors whether
Indian or Foreign:
Any vendor who will design the complete plant and develop build to print drawings or detailed
design specifications for equipment, components and systems after meeting the regulatory
criterial applicable in India will become supplier.
Sub-Vendors only supply systems and equipment as per detailed design specifications or ‘build
to print’ drawings provided to them. They cannot be called suppliers.
 Two features of Rule 24 (revisited)

1. Limitation of the Amount of Liability

Rule 24 sub-rule 1 provides that an operator’s liability will be restricted to the
extent of the operator’s liability (that is, the liability cannot exceed that which the
operator itself incurs) or the value of the contract with the supplier, whichever is
less.

2. Limitation of the Time Period for Liability

Rule 24 sub-rule 2 provides that a right of recourse, as provided for in section 17 of
the CLNDA, will be available to an operator only for the duration of the initial
license issued under India’s Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 (about
five years), or the product liability period negotiated between the supplier and
operator, whichever is longer.
American Nuclear Insurance (ANI) Pool information brochure on civil liability
In October 2013 brochure, ANI lists some seven possible scenarios where supplier could
be made liable.
“All of this argues for several situations where the supplier’s own insurance might be
helpful. If a supplier is comfortable with the protection afforded by the conventions and
by a specific country’s legislative regime, that supplier might very well forego their own
insurance. If, on the other hand, a supplier is uncomfortable relying upon the conventions
and the national nuclear liability laws, or is uncertain where they supply products or
services, that supplier might very well purchase the insurance. For those who choose the
latter course, ANI makes available a foreign Supplier’s and Transporter’s policy.”
The policy excludes certain countries, most notably the U.S., Canada, China, India and
Japan. The U.S. is excluded because ANI has a separate pool and policy to insure U.S.
nuclear liability exposures. China and India are excluded because they have questionable
legislative regimes, and because they are not parties to the Vienna Convention. Now it
may become clear why the US is wary of our CLNDA.
Michael G. Faure and Tom Vanden Borre
“Compensating Nuclear Damage: a Comparative Economic Analysis of the
U.S. and International Liability Schemes”.
“Moreover, the Energy Independence and Security Act of December 19,
2007, provides the way the U.S. will execute its obligations under the CSC.
As a result of the Act implementing the Convention, nuclear suppliers will
be obliged to participate in the retrospective risk pooling program to cover
the costs of the U.S. contribution pursuant to the Convention on
Supplementary Compensation.”
The reason why the USA went ahead ratifying CSC is not difficult to fathom.
As per Price- Anderson Act, the liability is not—as it is in the international
regime—exclusively channelled to the nuclear operator. Under the Price-
Anderson Act, suppliers can be held liable, but their liability is covered by
the omnibus coverage of the nuclear operator.
Energy Independence and Security Act provides for the U.S. Treasury
payment into the fund provided for by the CSC but, the costs will be
reimbursed by a payment program that suppliers have to set up.
The U.S. obligation under the CSC will be shifted to market participants—
the nuclear suppliers.
The nuclear suppliers in the U.S. are now considering establishing a captive
insurance company in order to pay for their contribution under the CSC.

What cannot be legally chanelled by Price-Anderson Act, it took recourse to

CSC to protect its suppliers.
The interesting point is these suppliers are asked to pay prospective
premiums.
 How can one address this Rule 24 (Product Liability) issue?
Article 10 of the CSC Annex is silent on the operator - supplier contract negotiations.
Insurers in India established of India Nuclear Insurance Pool in this regard
The India Nuclear Insurance Pool is a risk transfer mechanism. The pool will cover the risks of
the liability of the nuclear operator under Section 6(2) of the CLND Act and of the suppliers
under Section 17 of the Act.
A Probabilistic Safety Assessment based study has been carried out by DAE To help the
insurers and the operator/supplier workout the quantum of premiums based on risk appraisal.
Article 10(a) of the CSC Annex does not restrict in any manner the contents of the contract
between the operator and the supplier including the basis for recourse agreed by the operator
and supplier.
Reference to the supplier in Section 17(b) is in conformity with and not in contradiction of
Article 10(a) of the CSC Annex.
Its operationalisation will be through the contract conditions agreed to by the operator and
the supplier.
The CLND act contains another provision (tort):
Section 46: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing
contained herein shall exempt the operator from any proceeding, which
might, apart from this Act, be instituted against such operator.
There are two sets of issues that have been raised in respect of Section 46:
Whether it allows proceedings against the supplier, and consequently how
would it operate against a person other than the operator under other
laws e.g. products liability law?
Whether it contravenes the Convention on Supplementary Convention
(CSC) by not limiting civil nuclear liability to the four walls of the Act as
well as by providing for jurisdiction outside of India?
The CLND act contains another provision (tort)- Analysis-1
There is no mention of supplier of anywhere in the text.
The language in section 46 of CLND Act 2010 is similar to such language in
several other legislations enacted in India such as Telecom Regulatory
authority Act, Electricity Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Act, Insurance Commission Act.
As regards the applicability of Section 46 to the supplier, it may be noted
that provisions of section 46 are only applicable to operators and do not
cover suppliers as a provision that was expressly excluded from the statute
cannot be read into the statute by interpretation.
This was further confirmed by the Parliamentary debates at the time of the
adoption of this Act.
Whether it contravenes the Convention on Supplementary Convention (CSC) by not
limiting civil nuclear liability to the four walls of the Act as well as by providing for
jurisdiction outside of India?

From Annex to CSC:

Article 3 (8). Nothing in this Convention shall affect the liability outside this
Convention of the operator for nuclear damage for which by virtue of paragraph
7(c) he is not liable under this Convention.
35. Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts.–Save as otherwise provided in
section 46, no civil court (except the Supreme Court and a High Court
exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) shall
have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter
which the Claims Commissioner or the Commission, as the case may be, is
empowered to adjudicate under this Act and no injunction shall be granted by
any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in
pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
The CLND act contains another provision (tort)- Analysis-2
With regard to the second issue, paragraph 9 of Article 3 of the Annex of the CSC provides for
the exclusive liability of the operator or against the insurer or supplier of funds.
In respect of civil damages Section 46 is compatible with the provisions of the Annex to CSC
(Article 3 (8)). Section 46 read along with Section 35 would mean that as far as civil liability for
nuclear damage is concerned, all claims for compensation towards nuclear damage have to be
filed before the Claims commissioner / Commission.
This is also the intent of the legislators as provided for in the long title of the Act. Section 46
does not affect the applicability of other laws therefore it does not exempt the operator from
application of other laws covering matters other than the civil liability for nuclear damage.
At the same time linkage between Section 35 and Section 46 clearly concludes that Section 46 is
directed only towards the Operator, and provision of remedy under Articles 226 and 227 of the
constitution (Supreme Court or High Court) is available to the victims against the Operator.
it does not create the grounds for victims to move foreign courts. In fact that would be against
the basic intent of the law to provide a domestic legal framework for victims of nuclear damage
to seek compensation.
The nuclear industry had taken tremendous strides since its
commercialization from 1950’s Nations should not be bound by
Whole gamut of technologies, the antiquated perception that the
chemical processes, industry still needs to be protected.
physics calculations,
improvements in design, construction and erection,
augmentation of multi-tier safety features with sufficient redundancy
a robust quality control and assurance programme
a stringent regulatory mechanism for ensuring safety right from the construction,
commissioning and operation stage
periodic auditing of safety features throughout the operation of nuclear power plants
Gave the nuclear industry unparalleled safety record.
The Fukushima incident resulted in conceiving and further augmenting even the beyond
design basis safety features.
It is inconceivable that any vendor, supplier, contractor or even operator is oblivious to
this fact and still insist for protection!
 The uniqueness of CLNDA
Progressive outlook
Has elements providing for necessary fixes within the ambit of
international regime
It is the first step in modern era to enable the legislators to think afresh
and come out of archaic framework formulated in olden days when it was
necessary to support the nuclear industry in its formative years.
CLNDA is the need of the hour.
A welfare State conscious of its societal obligations continuously strives to
review the archaic laws and amend to make them contemporarily
relevant.
Abolition of slavery was the need of the times in 1860s.
President Lincoln went ahead enacted the law despite stiff
opposition from Southern States.
 Further progress in matters related to CLNDA Post-notification
of the CLNDA

Safety directive from Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB): “Criteria

and Assessment Procedure for Notification of Nuclear Incident under the
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010” 2013 (as per Section 3(1) of
CLNDA)
This directive gives the composition of an Event Review Committee
and criteria in detail to determine whether an event qualifies as incident
under the Act

Nuclear Liability Fund setup by the Government (as per Section 7 (2) of
CLNDA) 2015
Charging a levy from the Operator (NPCIL) ≈ Rs. 2 billion/year
 Further progress in matters related to CLNDA Post-notification of
the CLNDA (Contd.)
Launching of Indian Nuclear Insurance Pool (INIP) in 2015
Option for the Operator to take out insurance thereby subrogating ‘Right of Recourse’
to the insurer. (as per Section 8(1) of CLNDA)
Nuclear Operators Liability (CLND Act, 2010) Insurance Policy, and
Nuclear Suppliers' Special Contingency (against Right of Recourse) Insurance Policy
NPCIL has since received the insurance policy covering all nuclear power plants operated
by it and the total premium is around Rs. 1 billion for a risk cover of Rs. 15 billion

MEA website : “Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damage Act, 2010 and Related Issues” for clarifications on Section 17 of CLNDA
Modified General Terms of Contract issued by NPCIL to include clarifications on operator,
supplier and the information on different insurance policies for operator and supplier.
To be attached with every tender form
Granted, any incident, by nature may occur accidentally and nuclear incidence is no
exception and enough legal remedies need to be in place for compensating the
innocent victims.
Alfred Tennyson’s famous poem Morte d’ Arthur where King Arthur, just before his
death says to his companion Sir Bedivere
“The old order changeth yielding place to the new,
And God fulfils Himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.”
The plain meaning of the beautiful utterance is that change is the order of the universe
and, in order that it may not stagnate and rot, the replacement of the old order by the
new is essential.
So provisions of CLNDA are the new order replacing the old. I would not say it is
replacing the old but is augmenting with certain value addition.
 Salient Points
US and Indian Law are better-suited legislations in the wake of Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Even though US law and Indian law differ, both in the US and India, suppliers and
designers of defective reactors can be held liable in case of a nuclear accident.
• In the US, this is achieved through economic channelling – with umbrella insurances
covering the liability of operators, suppliers and designers
• Indian law provides for a right of recourse by the operator against the operator
against suppliers and designers where a nuclear accident is due to supply or design
deficiencies.
These laws are undoubtedly superior to protect victims in case of a nuclear accident.
Whilst allowing a one-stop-shop for victims, who can limit their legal actions to suing
the operator, they allow the operator to take appropriate steps (umbrella insurance in
case of the US or the right of recourse in case of India)
 Salient Points(Contd.)
A critical analysis of the text of Rule 24 and the definition of Supplier therein, gives
clarity to the term supplier and avoids bunching of multitude of vendors sub-vendors
and other providers in the category of suppliers facilitating ease of identifying supplier
for liability insurance purpose.
A harmonious analysis of debates and various documents indicates that the Section 46
of the Act is directed only towards the Operator.
Compliance mandates acceptance of all the provisions from the international reference.
Inclusion of additional provisions to strengthen the objectives is desirable and does
not amount to deviation or noncompliance.
CLNDA also stipulates that Operator’s liability is strict and exclusive. He shall pay the
compensation for the nuclear damage. Section 17 is clear about this. The moment this
process of paying the compensation is complete, in my opinion, legal chanelling does
not hold and is not applicable until a future incident. One cannot invoke legal chanelling
for subsequent actions of the operator.
To End with, another quote

Charles Dickens through Pickwick papers.

The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club (1836), better known as The
Pickwick Papers, is the first novel by Charles Dickens.

In one context Pickwick observes: "It's always best on these occasions to

do what the mob do." "But suppose there are two mobs?" suggested Mr.
Snodgrass. "Shout with the largest," replied Mr. Pickwick.

Quite often this is practiced even now on CLNDA.

 Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director
General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Vienna, Austria August 1, 2008
‘The "umbrella" nature of this agreement provides a more efficient
mechanism for ensuring that safeguards requirements can be met. It
satisfies India´s needs while maintaining all the Agency´s legal
requirements. Such an "umbrella" approach could also be used for
the conclusion of other 66-type safeguards agreements.’

Dr Anil Kakodkar, former chairperson of Atomic Energy Commission of India and

Secretary to the Government of India, opines that the issue of Civil Nuclear Liability in
the country is well settled with the setting up of the insurance pool. He further
advised the foreign vendors to not to be perturbed by it and said the Indian law
should be emulated by other countries as well.
“The Civil Nuclear Liability issue is resolved. Earlier I was opposed to the legislation,
but now I think other countries should emulate it,” Dr Kakodkar told Nuclear Asia on
the margin of the Nuclear Energy World Expo 2018 in Mumbai. He also had advice for
the foreign vendors, who are complaining that the Indian law is not same as other
countries. “Foreign vendors need to get out of this mind-set that it (the law) is not
same as their law. But, who said it has to be the same?” he added.
 To Sum up
It may be underlined that the aim of the CLND Act is to bring relief quickly to victims of a
nuclear accident under a no-fault liability regime channelling liability to the operator.
Thus, the law is placed squarely in the international mainstream of civil nuclear liability
law, including the CSC. This intent is clear from the preamble or the long title of the Act:

“An Act to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the
victims of a nuclear incident through a no-fault liability regime, channelling liability to
the operator, appointment of Claims commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage
claims Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Thank you and

Namaskar