LexG. SUNDARRAJAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 631 G. SUNDARRAJAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2013) MAY 6, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A 8 Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Nuclear Power Plant - Safeguarding of plants, radioactive materials and ensuring its physical security- Requirement of protecting life and property C of people including the environment - Balance to be struck b.etween developmental needs and environmental degradation - Decision taken by the Government of India, Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) etc. for setting up of KKNPP- a nuclear power plant (NPP) at Kudankulam, D Tamil Nadu - Challenge to - Held: Nuclear energy is an important element in India's energy mix - KKNPP was set up as part of India's National Policy so as to develop, control and use of atomic energy for welfare of the people of India - For setting up the project, the project proponent has taken all E safety requirements in site and off site and followed the code of practices laid down by AERB, based on nationally and internationally recognized safety methods - Disaster Management Plan (DMP) is already in place, so also the emergency preparedness plan, off site and on site and all F programmes under Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) progressing in the right direction with co-operation and assistance of the District Administration - NPCIL, also received necessary environmental clearance from MoEF, TNPCB, etc for Units 1 to 6 - No violation of Coastal G Regulation Zone (CRZ) noticed - Desalination Plant established after following rules and regulations - Experts of the view that there will be no impact on the marine eco-system and that radiation impact on the eco-system is within the 631 H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A standard set by AERB, MoEF, Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), Pollution Control Board etc. - All expert teams unanimous in their opinion of the safety and security of the KKNPP both to life and property of the people and the environment which includes marine life - Justification for B establishing KKNPP at Kudankulam, therefore, vindicated - Apprehension, however, legitimate, cannot override justification of the project - However, directions given by Supreme Court in regard to safety of the plant, impact on environment, quality of various components and systems in C the NPP plant - Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules 1987 - The Hazardous Waste Management and Handling Rules 1989 - Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention and 0 Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Government Policy - Nuclear Policy - Judicial review - Scope - Held: It is not for Courts to determine whether a particular policy or a particular decision taken in fulfillment of a policy, is fair - Unless the policy framed is absolutely E capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary and based on mere ipse dixit of the executive authority or is invalid in constitutional or statutory mandate, court's interference is not called for - Courts· to respect national nuclear policy of the country reflected in the Atomic Energy Act and the same to F be given effect to, for welfare of the people and the country's economic growth - Atomic Energy Act, 1962. Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (Nuclear Liability Act) - Purpose and object of - Held: Is to provide civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to G victims of a nuclear accident through No-Fault Liability to the operators. In the instant appeals, an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the H setting up of KKNPP- a nuclear power plant (NPP) at G. SUNDARRAJAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 633 Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu arose for consideration. There A was large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to the setting up of KKNPP and its commissioning, with the nature of potential adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adding to fears and unrest. It was inter alia alleged that keeping in view the earlier accidents at the Three Mile Island (USA), Chernobyl in Russia and Fukushina in Japan etc., safety B of the people and the environment is of paramount importance and if the units were allowed to be commissioned before making sufficient safeguards on C the basis of the recommendations made by the Task Force of Nuclear Power Corporati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.