The Supreme Court has recently upheld the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 which bars private entities from obtaining licenses for working on nuclear energy in Sandeep TS v. Union of India Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).564/2024. The Court was of the belief that these provisions serve a "salutary public purpose" that ensures nuclear energy is used only for peaceful purposes under stringent government control.
The Petitioner challenged the ban imposed on private entities seeking licenses for nuclear energy purposes under the Atomic Energy Act, of 1962. The court's judgment not only affirmed the legal validity of this restriction but also shed light on the broader implications for India’s nuclear energy policies, and the delicate balance between innovation and security. The court also highlighted the role of governmental control in critical sectors like atomic energy.
The petitioner who is an Indian physicist residing in the United States, developed a technological innovation designed to trigger nuclear fission with minimal radioactive waste, positioning it as an advanced alternative to traditional nuclear fusion reactors. His invention involved producing clean energy, which is a priority for global energy sustainability efforts. However, under Section 14 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, private entities are prohibited from obtaining a license to work in nuclear energy production or engage in atomic energy-related activities. This provision restricts such licenses only to the Department of the Central Government, government corporations, or government-controlled entities.
The petitioner argued that his technology could significantly contribute to India's clean energy goals. He further argued that the statutory restrictions under the Atomic Energy Act were unjustly prohibitive. They deny him the opportunity to innovate and contribute to the sector. Based on this he sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution which guarantees enforcement of fundamental rights by the Apex Court.
The primary issue before the court was to determine whether the statutory limitations were necessary to uphold national security and public welfare or if they represented an unjust infringement on individual rights and entrepreneurship.
The petitioner argued that there is a need to strike a balance between state control and private-sector innovation. He argued that the government’s tight control over nuclear energy licensing, as outlined in Section 14 of the Atomic Energy Act, prevented potential innovators like him from contributing to the clean energy transition. His technology was designed to produce cleaner energy with minimal radioactive byproducts compared to traditional methods.
The court ultimately upheld the constitutionality of the Atomic Energy Act, of 1962 and dismissed the petitioner’s plea for license authorization.
As far as Section 14 of the Act is considered, it empowers the Central Government to prohibit certain activities related to mines, minerals, and substances unless a license is granted. Prohibited activities are those for which a license is not provided. These include the working of any mine or minerals, being a mine or minerals from which in the opinion of the Central Government any of the prescribed substances can be obtained or the acquisition, production, possession, use, disposal, export or import of Prescribed substances, Specific minerals or substances that can yield prescribed substances, Plants designed for atomic energy production, development, use, or related research, Prescribed equipment.
Licenses for plants related to atomic energy can only be granted to any Departments of the Central Government, Authorities, institutions, or corporations established by the Central Government or Government companies.
This regulation aims to control and restrict activities related to nuclear materials and technology, ensuring that only authorized entities can engage in these sensitive areas. The government maintains strict oversight to prevent misuse and ensure safety and security in the nuclear sector.
At the same time the government is empowered to allow the use for the working of any mine or minerals specified in the order, being a mine or minerals from which in the opinion of the Central Government any of the prescribed substances can be obtained- the acquisition, production, possession, use, disposal, export or import (a) of any of the prescribed substances; or (b) of any minerals or other substances specified in the rules, from which in the opinion of the Central Government any of the prescribed substances can be obtained; or (c) of any plant designed or adopted or manufactured for the production, development, and use of atomic energy or for research into matters connected therewith; or (d) of any prescribed equipment.
The court observed that the restrictions under Section 14 of the Act are not arbitrary. Instead, they serve a critical public function by ensuring that the use of atomic energy is confined to peaceful purposes and remains under the strict control of the state. The title of the Act explicitly outlines that the regulation is in place for the “development, control, and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India” and for other peaceful purposes, emphasizing the importance of stringent safeguards.
The court highlighted the calibrated approach envisaged by the Act, wherein nuclear power can only be exploited under state supervision due to the immense potential for misuse and accidents. Therefore, the prohibition on private licensing was justified as a preventive measure to avoid any potential security risks or environmental disasters. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s fundamental rights were not violated by the provisions of the Act, and hence, the petition did not warrant further consideration under Article 32.
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the state's tight control over nuclear energy, which remains a heavily regulated sector in India. While the decision aligns with the global practices of many countries that impose restrictions on nuclear technology, it raises important questions regarding the future role of innovation and private enterprise in the nuclear space.
Countries like France, Russia, and China have long maintained state monopolies over their nuclear energy sectors, with private participation limited to auxiliary roles or heavily regulated collaborations. The risks of nuclear proliferation, accidents, or even potential misuse necessitate state control over atomic energy. However, a public-private partnership in research and innovation in the future could stimulate the sector, provided there is sufficient governmental oversight to prevent any misuse.