This is our duty. Along with 187,759 people I signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to hold a public consultation before taking a decision on the nuclear liability bill. These petitions were delivered to the Standing Committee looking at the bill and now they have decided to hold a public consultation.
The bill in its current form lets the foreign corporations get away by paying a meagre amount in case of a nuclear accident in India. The major chunk of the expenses will be borne by the Indian tax payers. But now we have a chance to change this bill and make it stronger.
Greenpeace, an NGO working on this issue, has prepared an open letter which states the changes required in the bill. Just like the petition, this letter will stand a chance of being considered if lots of us sign it. We have less than two weeks to change the bill and prevent another Bhopal in the making.
This is not for Indians alone.Right thinking people of the world,please sign in the name of humanity
I have already added my signature.
Can you add your signature to this letter?
( My comment along with my signature. Please add your own in the site).1.Liability ,in case of accidents involving processes must also include manufacture, design and maintenance of equipments.It is the natural process wherein the process depends mostly on the equipment.As one sees, the agreement has been made only because the Equipments are of critical importance and we needed them .Hence natural justice demands that the major liability must rest with manufacturers.
2.As the equipment is being purchased from other countries, the insurer of the company in that country is to cover the risk
Link for signing the petition.
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/change-the-liability-bill?tyf=1
Petition.
To
Dr. T Subbarami Reddy,
Chairperson
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology
Room No 202.
Parliament House Annexe
Parliament Street
New Delhi
Dear Sir,
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010, currently with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology for recommendations, not only has profound impacts on the democratic and constitutional rights of the people of our country, but also, affects the compensation payable, in case of a nuclear accident. The meager amount of compensation laid down in case of a nuclear accident in the proposed bill, is capped at $ 450 million, which is way below the much criticised compensation of $470 million, provided to victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (which was not a nuclear accident).
It undermines the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees’ “Right to life” and includes right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life with dignity.
If one examines the various issues raised with the bill they largely relate to the following clauses:
1. The Bill lays down a cap for the maximum financial liability at rupee equivalent of 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR), which is equal to $458 million (Rs. 2.087 crores). This is a meager amount when compared to the Price Anderson Act in the United States, which has created a pooled fund of $10.5 billion (Rs. 50,000 crores appox).
2. The Bill restricts the channeling of compensation. The bill lays down for legal channeling of liability according to which only the operator is responsible in case of a nuclear accident. No civil suits can be initiated against the suppliers or any other person for faulty design or faulty construction. However, countries like the United States lay down for the economic channeling of liability, which makes it possible for law suits to be initiated against anyone in the entire supply chain.
3. The Bill lays down that the operator is not liable for any damage in case the damage is caused by terrorism. This will limit the very purpose for which the Bill is being put in place that is to provide relief to victims of a disaster. Under the Vienna convention and the original Paris convention terrorism is not a ground for exoneration.
4. The Bill limits the timeframe within which a claim can be initiated to 10 years. However, nuclear incidents can have trans generational effects which manifest over decades in future. In such cases it would become impossible to initiate claims if the 10 years cut off period is put in. The Paris Convention for example lays down 30 years as the cut off period.
5. Clause 17(b) of the Bill initially laid down the right of recourse for the operator in case of a nuclear accident against the suppliers for gross negligence. There is a recommendation from the department of Atomic Energy to dilute the clause further. This appears to be the government appearing to indemnify the supplier while burdening the taxpayer.
The above concerns are not exhaustive, however they clearly point to the fact that there is a need for exhaustive, holistic consultations before this committee performs its onerous task of making recommendations. In the light of the Bhopal case, it becomes our duty not to allow another Bhopal to hap
You must be logged in to post a comment.