Congress Alleges 'Bulldozing' of SHANTI Bill, Citing Benefits for PM Modi and Corporates

Introduction

The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025, has become a focal point of political contention in India. On December 20, 2025, the Congress party launched a sharp critique against its passage, alleging that the legislation was 'bulldozed' through Parliament to primarily benefit Prime Minister Narendra Modi and certain corporate entities. This accusation follows the bill's clearance by both houses of Parliament and subsequent presidential assent. The government, however, maintains that the bill is a landmark reform crucial for India's energy future.

Legislative Journey and Key Provisions

The SHANTI Bill, 2025, aims to significantly reform India's nuclear energy sector. It was approved by the Lok Sabha on December 17, 2025, and subsequently passed by the Rajya Sabha on December 18, 2025. Presidential assent was granted on December 20, 2025. The legislation seeks to replace the existing Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, with a single, comprehensive law. Its primary objective is to open the tightly controlled civil nuclear sector to private participation, a move anticipated to help India achieve its ambitious target of 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047.

Key changes introduced by the SHANTI Bill include:

• Allowing private companies to build, own, and operate nuclear power plants.
• Permitting private sector involvement in various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, such as uranium mining and fuel fabrication, under strict regulatory conditions.
• Revising nuclear liability norms, notably by removing Section 46 of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which previously addressed supplier liability.
• Introducing graded liability caps linked to the size and capacity of nuclear installations.
• Granting statutory status to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) to strengthen regulatory oversight.

Congress's Allegations of 'Bulldozing'

The Congress party's criticism centered on the manner in which the bill was passed. Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh was a prominent voice, alleging that the bill was 'bulldozed' through Parliament without adequate debate or referral to a parliamentary committee for detailed scrutiny. Ramesh claimed the legislation was pushed through not only for 'TRUMP' (The Reactor Use Management Programme/Promise), implying benefits for US interests, but also for 'ADANI' (Accelerated Damaging Adhiniyam for Nuclear India), directly referencing the Adani group and suggesting corporate favoritism. He further linked the bill's passage to the US National Defence Authorisation Act for 2026, which reportedly includes references to joint assessments between India and the US on nuclear liability rules. The opposition argued that the removal of supplier liability provisions could leave citizens vulnerable in the event of a nuclear accident and that the bill undermines parliamentary consensus achieved in 2010.

Government's Stance and Defense

The government has strongly defended the SHANTI Bill, emphasizing its importance for India's energy security and development. Dr. Jitendra Singh, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science and Technology and Atomic Energy, described the legislation as 'landmark' and asserted that it strengthens regulatory oversight, nuclear safety, national sovereignty, and public accountability. He reiterated the principle of 'safety first, production next' and highlighted that the bill aligns India with global best practices in nuclear governance. Prime Minister Modi also characterized the bill's passage as a 'transformational moment' for the nation.

Conclusion

The passage of the SHANTI Bill, 2025, marks a significant shift in India's nuclear energy policy, aiming to accelerate growth in the sector through private participation. While the government champions it as a crucial step towards energy independence, the Congress party's allegations of a 'bulldozed' passage and concerns over potential benefits to specific entities and diluted liability provisions underscore the political divide and ongoing debate surrounding this pivotal legislation.