Disaster law is the branch of law that deals with how governments and institutions prevent, prepare for, respond to, and compensate people affected by disasters.
Disasters can be:
- Natural: earthquakes, floods, cyclones
- Man-made: industrial accidents, chemical leaks, nuclear accidents
A nuclear disaster happens when radioactive material escapes from a nuclear plant or facility. Such disasters are different because:
- Radiation effects last for decades
- Damage can cross national borders
- Health effects may appear years later
- Compensation amounts are extremely high
In India, nuclear disasters are mainly covered by the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which specifically deals with compensation for nuclear accidents. Under this Act, Section 4 places strict liability on the nuclear operator, Section 6 fixes the maximum liability amount, and Section 17 provides a limited right of recourse against suppliers. In addition, nuclear accidents are also treated as “disasters” under Section 2(d) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which includes man-made disasters, allowing disaster response and relief mechanisms to be applied alongside nuclear liability law.
The operator of a nuclear reactor is the person or authority that owns, controls, and runs the nuclear installation, such as a government company or licensed entity managing the plant. Under nuclear liability laws, including India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, the operator is strictly and exclusively liable for any nuclear accident, meaning victims do not have to prove fault or negligence. The operator is primarily responsible, regardless of whether the accident was caused by a supplier, contractor, or natural event.”
Because of these risks, special laws exist for nuclear disasters.
Key Legal Principles in Nuclear Disaster Law
Most nuclear laws follow these principles:
- Strict liability – Victims need not prove fault
- Operator liability – Only the nuclear plant operator is liable
- Limited liability – A maximum compensation amount is fixed
- Mandatory insurance – Operators must carry insurance
Example: If radiation leaks from a plant, victims need not prove negligence. The operator is automatically responsible.
International Legal Framework for Nuclear Disasters
After major nuclear accidents, countries agreed on common international rules.
- Nuclear Liability Conventions
(a) Paris Convention, 1960 (OECD Countries)
- Makes the operator strictly liable
- Fixes a compensation limit
- Claims can be filed only in one country (where accident occurred)
- 2004 amendment increased compensation to €700 million
Example: A nuclear accident in France affecting Germany would still be handled under French courts.
(b) Vienna Convention, 1963 (IAEA)
- Similar to Paris Convention
- Applies to more countries worldwide
- 1997 amendment expanded definition of “nuclear damage” (health, environment)
(c) Joint Protocol, 1988
- Connects Paris and Vienna Conventions
- Prevents legal confusion in cross-border cases
(d) Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), 1997
- Provides extra international compensation
- Entered into force in 2015
- India and Japan are parties
Example: If national compensation is insufficient, international funds can help victims.
- Emergency Response Conventions (Post-Chernobyl)
(a) Early Notification Convention, 1986
- Country must immediately inform IAEA and affected states
- Applies when radiation may cross borders
(b) Assistance Convention, 1986
- Allows countries to seek international help
- Covers medical aid, experts, and equipment
Example: After Fukushima, Japan shared radiation data and received international assistance.
- Major Nuclear Disasters and Legal Responses
- Chernobyl Disaster (1986, USSR)
What happened?
A reactor explosion released massive radiation across Europe.
Legal Impact:
- USSR was not party to liability conventions
- No international compensation claims succeeded
- Victims depended on domestic welfare schemes
Legal Significance:
- Led to adoption of 1986 IAEA Conventions
- Exposed gaps in international nuclear law
Lesson: Without international agreements, victims face serious legal hurdles.
- Three Mile Island (1979, USA)
What happened?
Partial reactor meltdown; very limited radiation release.
Law Applied:
Price-Anderson Act, USA
Key Case Law:
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group (1978)
The US Supreme Court ruled that setting a maximum limit on compensation in nuclear accident cases is legal and does not violate the Constitution. The Court explained that liability caps help ensure quick payment to victims, keep the nuclear industry financially viable, and serve the public interest, even though they limit the amount that can be claimed from operators.
- Outcome:
- About $71 million paid in claims
- No deaths or serious injuries
- Led to safety reforms, not liability reform
Example: Liability was capped and shared within the nuclear industry pool; victims could not file unlimited claims.
- Fukushima Daiichi Disaster (2011, Japan)
What happened?
Tsunami caused reactor meltdowns, mass evacuations.
Law Applied:
- Japanese Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage
- Liability placed on TEPCO (operator)
Important Case Laws:
- Maebashi District Court (2017)
Held Japanese government and TEPCO negligent
- Japan Supreme Court (2022)
Government not liable, but TEPCO must compensate victims
Outcome:
- Compensation worth billions of dollars
- Japan joined CSC in 2015
Lesson: Courts may still examine government negligence despite strict liability rules.
- National Legal Approaches
- United States – Price-Anderson Act
Key Features:
- Operator insurance (~$450 million)
- Industry pool (~$15 billion)
- Government covers excess
Criticism:
- Seen as subsidy to nuclear industry
- But ensures quick compensation
Case Reference:
Duke Power Case (1978) – Liability cap valid under US Constitution.
- Japan – Nuclear Compensation Law
Key Features:
- Strict liability on operator
- Limited liability (earlier cap ¥120 billion)
- Government support beyond cap
Debate:
- Whether tsunami was an “exceptional natural disaster”
Case Reference:
Fukushima Compensation Cases (2017–2022)
- India – Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010
Background:
Influenced by Bhopal Gas Disaster (1984)
Bhopal Case:
- Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation (1989)
Settlement of $470 million criticized as inadequate
Key Features of Indian Act:
- Operator liability capped at ₹1,500 crore
- Government liability up to 300 million SDR
- Unique supplier liability (right of recourse)
Example: If faulty equipment causes an accident, operator may sue supplier.
Legal Status:
- Constitutional challenges filed
- Courts upheld the Act
Significance: India is one of the few countries allowing supplier liability.
Challenges and Future Issues
Nuclear disaster law faces several challenges, including difficulty in enforcing compensation for cross-border damage, concerns that liability limits are too low as seen in the enormous costs of the Fukushima disaster, and ongoing debate over whether nuclear equipment suppliers should be protected or held accountable. As nuclear energy is increasingly promoted as a clean energy source, stronger and clearer legal frameworks are needed. Nuclear disaster law also operates alongside general disaster management laws and is supported internationally by the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, which emphasizes prevention, preparedness, and resilience.
Recent Developments
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, 2025, passed by Parliament in December 2025, repeals the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (along with the Atomic Energy Act, 1962). The new law removes the operator’s right of recourse against suppliers, aligns more closely with international norms by limiting liability exposure for suppliers, and introduces a revised framework to facilitate private sector participation. Once notified and in force, it will replace the 2010 Act’s provisions.
Conclusion
Nuclear disaster law is designed to protect people affected by nuclear accidents, ensure that compensation is paid quickly, promote high safety standards in nuclear facilities, and balance public welfare with the growth of the nuclear industry. Major disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Bhopal have strongly influenced the development of these laws. Although legal systems have become stronger over time, debates continue about compensation limits, fairness to victims, and effective enforcement. Overall, nuclear disaster law is a strict and victim-focused legal system created to deal with the unique and serious risks of nuclear accidents.
As nuclear energy expands, balancing rapid compensation, safety, and fair accountability remains the central challenge for nuclear disaster law globally and in India.
