SHANTI Bill, 2025: Return of ‘Dr Reform’: Modi’s Nuclear Gamble

Spread love

After retreating on farm laws, Modi returns with a far riskier reform—opening nuclear energy to Indian corporates while keeping foreign control out.

By NIRENDRA DEV

New Delhi, December 17, 2025 — The acronym is SHANTI—peace. But politically, the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025 signals anything but calm. It marks the return of “Dr Reform” Narendra Modi, with a structural overhaul far more complex—and potentially more controversial—than the farm laws he withdrew in 2021.

The government has tabled the SHANTI Bill in the Lok Sabha, proposing to dismantle a decades-old state monopoly over nuclear power. If passed by both Houses, the legislation will repeal the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010—two statutes long viewed by domestic industry and foreign partners as insurmountable roadblocks to investment.

This is no incremental change. It is a systemic reset of India’s civil nuclear framework.

Global majors—Westinghouse, GE-Hitachi, France’s EDF and Russia’s Rosatom—have already expressed interest in partnering with Indian firms. At home, conglomerates such as Tata Power, Adani Power and Reliance Industries have signalled willingness to invest. For the first time, Indian private companies could be licensed to build, own, operate and even decommission nuclear power plants—activities so far dominated by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and its state-run allies.

Bihar: Centre Nod for Nuclear Plant, 1000 MW Battery Storage Unit

The Bill seeks to strike a careful balance between reform and restraint. Private companies incorporated in India would be eligible not only to operate reactors, but also to fabricate nuclear fuel and handle transportation and storage of nuclear and spent fuel. However, firms controlled by foreign entities will be barred from holding licences. Sensitive activities—fuel enrichment, spent-fuel reprocessing and heavy water production—will remain firmly under government control.

The most consequential shift lies in liability reform. The SHANTI Bill limits liability for nuclear incidents to plant operators and explicitly exempts equipment suppliers, addressing a long-standing concern that kept global vendors away. Liability will be capped at the rupee equivalent of 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), aligned with international norms. Operators must maintain insurance or liability funds ranging from about USD 11 million to USD 330 million, depending on reactor size, with a separate nuclear liability fund—and ultimately the government—covering excess claims.

Safety oversight is also strengthened. The Bill grants statutory status to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), moving it beyond its current executive footing, and proposes an Atomic Energy Redressal Advisory Council to resolve disputes. Violations will attract penalties ranging from ₹5 lakh to ₹1 crore, signalling that liberalisation does not mean laxity.

Strategically, the Bill is anchored in India’s climate commitments: net-zero emissions by 2070 and a bold target of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047, up from about 8.2 GW today. Achieving this scale without private capital is implausible. Nuclear energy offers base-load stability that renewables cannot yet guarantee at scale.

Politics, however, will shape the outcome. Rahul Gandhi and his ecosystem will be watched closely—perhaps as early as his Germany visit. Will the Opposition stall this reform as it did the farm laws? Or will it engage on substance rather than street pressure? Modi, scarred by the 2021 retreat, appears determined not to cave in again.

The SHANTI Bill is Modi’s most ambitious reform gamble since GST. It tests whether India can embrace high-risk, high-reward reform with institutional safeguards intact. The question is no longer whether nuclear power is necessary. It is whether Bharat is finally ready to trust itself with reform—without blinking.

(This is an opinion piece. Views expressed are the author’s own.)