Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Atomic Energy Act

The Supreme Court of India has dealt with an important matter of contemporary relevance: atomic energy in India. This post addresses the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sandeep TS v. Union of India, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).564/2024: Order dt. 17.09.2024: SCI. 

A writ petition was filed early this year by one Mr. Sandeep TS, a physicist and an Indian citizen residing in the USA. The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raising a grievance against the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (“Atomic Energy Act”) as it allegedly restricted, unduly, the involvement of private parties in licensing for nuclear energy.

The matter came up before a three judge Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra. The three judge Bench referred to the Long Title of the Atomic Energy Act and Section 14 thereof.

The Long Title to the Atomic Energy Act reads: “An Act to provide for the development, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other peaceful purposes and for matters connected therewith.”

Section 2(1)(g) defines the term “prescribed substance” as “any substance including any mineral which the Central Government may, by notification, prescribe, being a substance which in its opinion is or may be used for the production or use of atomic energy or research into matters connected therewith and includes uranium, plutonium, thorium, beryllium, deuterium or any of their respective derivatives or compounds or any other materials containing any of the aforesaid substances;”

Section 14 of the said Act provided for the following:

• Central Government may make rules relating to control over production and use of atomic energy.
• Central Government may prohibit except under a licence activities prescribed in Section 14(1), including the acquisition, production, possession, use, disposal, export or import of a prescribed substance, etc.
• A licence for the acquisition, production, possession, use, disposal, export or import of any plant designed or adopted or manufactured for the production, development and use of atomic energy or for research into matters connected therewith can only be given to a Department of the Central Government or any authority or an institution or a corporation established by the Central Government, or a Government company.
• A licence granted to a Government company under Section 14(1) would stand cancelled when such company ceases to be a Government company.
• The extent of rule making power of the Central Government under this provision.

So, when the petitioner challenged the Atomic Energy Act as unduly restrictive, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge on the following grounds:

• The Parliament has introduced the Atomic Energy Act for a calibrated exploitation of atomic energy and subjected it to strict safeguards considering the adverse effects of misuse or accident.
• Hence, this Act cannot be considered as arbitrary or as interfering with the Petitioner’s fundamental rights.

Accordingly, the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

Followers of this blog may recollect a post titled "Small Modular Nuclear reactors in India: Liberalisation of Regime & Way Forward last year where we highlighted the same issue. The Supreme Court in this case rightly dismissed the petition since this is a matter for the Legislature to take a call.