It is a communication challenge around scale, safety, and the story we tell
By Mayuri Singh & Nishant Saxena
When Parliament clears a law as consequential as the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025, the real work begins after the vote. Laws do not travel into public consciousness on their technical merit alone. They move through narratives. And SHANTI, perhaps more than any recent energy reform, demands careful, strategic communication. Not to sell it blindly, but to explain it honestly.
Because what the SHANTI Bill does is not incremental. It resets the grammar of India’s nuclear governance.
For over six decades, India’s nuclear sector operated under a closed legal architecture.
→ The Atomic Energy Act, 1962, created a state monopoly.
→ The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, added a layer of uncertainty that made global suppliers nervous and domestic expansion slow.
The result was paradoxical. A country that mastered nuclear technology early struggled to scale civilian nuclear power meaningfully.
SHANTI replaces this architecture altogether. One consolidated law. A licensing regime instead of exclusive state ownership. A reworked liability framework. A regulator with explicit statutory authority. Private participation, yes, but under tightly drawn sovereign boundaries.
This distinction is where strategic communication becomes essential.
What is genuinely new, and why it matters
The most important thing to communicate is that SHANTI is not simply a policy tweak. It is a structural reset for the sector.
For the first time, India moves from a model where only NPCIL or BHAVINI could own and operate nuclear plants, to one where licensed private entities and joint ventures can do so under conditions set by the Centre. This is a shift from monopoly to managed participation. Not deregulation. Not abdication of state control.
Equally significant is the overhaul of nuclear liability. The 2010 law capped operator liability at ₹1,500 crore and introduced supplier recourse provisions that scared off international vendors. SHANTI introduces graded liability. Larger reactors face higher liability caps, going up to ₹3,000 crore. Smaller reactors and fuel cycle facilities face lower slabs. A dedicated nuclear liability fund is created, financed through levies on nuclear power. This aligns India with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, making nuclear projects insurable and financeable again.
The regulator’s role is also fundamentally altered. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is given clear statutory backing. Mandatory prior safety authorisation becomes non negotiable for any activity involving radiation exposure. This applies equally to public and private installations.
And yet, the state does not relinquish sovereignty. Source and fissile material remain under central government control. Spent fuel custody ultimately lies with the Union government. Private players earn operational and revenue rights, not ownership over nuclear material or long term waste decisions.
These nuances matter. Because without them, the public conversation collapses into a binary of safety versus privatisation. That is a false binary.
What makes SHANTI different from the past
Under the old regime, private industry existed at the margins. EPC contracts. Equipment supply. Manufacturing support. The core risk and ownership stayed with the state. This model limited speed, capital mobilisation, and technological diversity.
SHANTI accepts a difficult truth. If India wants firm, low carbon power at scale, nuclear cannot remain a boutique public sector endeavour. Renewables need baseload support. Storage alone will not bridge the gap fast enough. Nuclear does not replace solar or wind. It complements them.
But opening the door without redrawing safety and liability lines would have been reckless. That is why the Bill rewrites the rules simultaneously. It expands participation and tightens oversight. It narrows supplier liability while expanding compensation layers. It invites capital while ring fencing sovereign control.
This balance is fragile. Which is precisely why communication cannot be casual.
The Strategic Communication task ahead
The central narrative must be this. SHANTI is about scale with safeguards.
It is not about privatising the atom. It is about enabling capacity while keeping nuclear material, waste custody, and regulatory authority firmly in the state’s hands.
Three messaging pillars need to be held consistently.
First, firm clean power for India’s future. Nuclear’s role in meeting the 100 GW by 2047 ambition must be framed alongside renewables, not against them. This is about round the clock low carbon power, grid stability, and industrial decarbonisation.
Second, from monopoly to managed participation. The story is not that private players are unleashed. The story is that they are licensed, regulated, and monitored more explicitly than ever before.
Third, safer and more predictable. A clearer liability regime, a statutory regulator, and multi layered compensation mechanisms together reduce risk for citizens and investors alike.
The contentious elements cannot be wished away. Supplier liability will be criticised as dilution. Private entry will be framed as risk privatisation and profit socialisation. These critiques deserve acknowledgement, not dismissal.
The honest response is to explain trade offs. Global capital and advanced technology do not flow into legal uncertainty. At the same time, compensation mechanisms have been strengthened, liability caps raised for large reactors, and oversight institutionalised. The debate now shifts to how rules, levies, and enforcement are designed in practice. That is where democratic scrutiny should focus.
Why this is ultimately a Communication reform
Nuclear energy is more than just an engineering challenge. It is a trust challenge.
SHANTI attempts to fix governance and finance without lowering safety thresholds. Whether it succeeds will depend less on what the law says, and more on how its intent is communicated and implemented.
→ For policymakers, the task is to speak in detail, not slogans.
→ For media, the responsibility is to explain control structures, not just ownership headlines.
→ For industry, restraint in messaging is crucial. Over celebrating private entry will only deepen suspicion.
SHANTI is an invitation to reimagine India’s nuclear future. But it is also a reminder. In sectors where risk is invisible and fear is historical, strategy begins with language.
If India wants this law to endure, it must first be understood.
Also Read: English-First Systems and the Illusion of Inclusion
No responses yet